Imaginary Mechanisms Of Evolution
The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the "mainstream" theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve.
When we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another.
Natural Selection
As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin’s theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...
However since Darwin’s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. (11)
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.
Butterflies of the Industrial Revolution
In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the butterfly population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England.
According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured butterflies resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the light-coloured butterflies became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-coloured butterflies decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured butterflies "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.
The example of the butterflies of the Industrial Revolution is advanced as the greatest evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, evolution is out of the question in this example, as no new butterfly species is formed. On the left are trees and butterflies of the pre-Industrial Revolution era, and on the right are those of the post-Industrial Revolution era.
However, it should be quite clear that this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured butterflies existed in the butterfly population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing butterfly species in the population changed. The butterflies had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a "change in species". In order to have a butterfly turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.
Briefly, natural selection does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism into another species-quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than butterflies in England.
Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. (12)
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (13)
Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur". (14) This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".
Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature...
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction. (15)
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful? (16)
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme. (17)
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. (18)
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, or dwarfism. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.
To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists’ assertions:
The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
Mutations add no new information to an organism’s DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.
A fruit fly (drosophila) with its legs jutting from its head: a mutation induced by radiation.
Mutations do not improve an organism, but rather harm it. Above, the effects of mutation on a human eye.
The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution
The Ever-missing Links
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously-existing species turned into something else in time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. (19)
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":
...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. (20)
The single explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, the evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. (21)
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. (22)
They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T.Neville George:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps. (23)
1)
New Scientist, 20 Jan.1984, 3)
National Geographic, vol 159 4)
National Geographic, vol.159
2)
National Geographic, vol.152
LIVING FOSSILS
Examples exist of fossils aged millions of years old that are no differentfrom their current "descendants". These remains are clear evidence forthe fact that they have come into being not as a result of evolution butby special creation: (1) Shark aged 400 million years, (2) Grasshopperaged 40 million years, (3) Ant aged 100 million years, (4) Cockroach aged 320 million years.
Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the life forms found in this strata have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today". (24)
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:
Researchers have since uncovered thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils that offer a glimpse back to a pivotal event in the history of life. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creat5res. In a blink of geological time a planet dominated by simple sponge-like animals gave way to one ruled by a vast variety of sophisticated beasts, animals whose relatives still inhabit the world today. (25)
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. (26)
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (27) Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." (28) The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin’s "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". (29)
As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.
Deceptive Fossil Interpretations Of Evolutionists
Before going into the details of the legend of man’s evolution, we need to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in the past. This propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions" made in reference to fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all reconstructions.
IMAGINARY DRAWINGS: In their pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.
Since fossils are usually disordered and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on the fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. An anthropologist from Harvard, David R. Pilbeam stresses this fact when he says "at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data". (53) Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.
At this point, we have to highlight a particular point: reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the very general characteristics of the object, since the real distinctive details are soft tissues that quickly vanish in time. Therefore with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University, explains the situation like this:
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public... So put not your trust in reconstructions. (54)
As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of such a forgery.
The biased interpretation of fossils or fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions may be an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.
Evolution Forgeries
There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.
Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
A well-known doctor and also an amateur paleoanthropologist, Charles Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500 thousand years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the subject. (55) The famous American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "...we have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and this is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting the British Museum in 1935. (56)
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum’s paleontology department attempted to try the method of "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old.
The latest chronological studies made with the fluorine method have revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. (57) In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filled in order to resemble that of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said that "the evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked - how was it that they had escaped notice before?" (58) In the wake of all this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.
Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the manager of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth in West Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape. Deep scientific arguments began in which some interpreted this tooth to be of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate, was called the "Nebraska Man". It was also immediately given a "scientific name": Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska Man’s head and body were drawn. Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles accredited this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man". (59) Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide. (60)
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" legend, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.
The Scenario Of Human Evolution
In previous chapters, we saw that there are no mechanisms in nature to lead the living beings to evolve and that living species came into existence not as the result of an evolutionary process, but rather emerged all of a sudden in their present perfect structure. That is, they were created individually. Therefore, it is obvious that "human evolution", too, is a story that has never taken place.
What, then, do the evolutionists propose as the basis for this story?
This basis is the existence of plenty of fossils on which the evolutionists are able to build up imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 ape species have lived and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 ape species live on the earth. These approximately 6,000 ape species, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.
Evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the smallest to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them. According to this scenario, men and modern apes have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became the apes of today while another group that followed another branch of evolution became the men of today.
However, all the paleontological, anatomical and biological findings have demonstrated that this claim of evolution is as fictitious and invalid as all the others. No sound or real evidence has been put forward to prove that there is a relationship between man and ape, except forgeries, distortions, and misleading drawings and comments.
The fossil record indicates to us that throughout history, men have been men and apes have been apes. Some of the fossils the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of man, belong to human races that lived until very recently-about 10,000 years ago-and then disappeared. Moreover, many human communities currently living have the same physical appearance and characteristics as these extinct human races, which the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of men. All these are clear proof that man has never gone through an evolutionary process at any period in history.
The most important of all is that there are numerous anatomical differences between apes and men and none of them are of the kind to come into existence through an evolutionary process. "Bipedality" is one of them. As we will describe later on in detail, bipedality is peculiar to man and it is one of the most important traits that distinguishes man from other animals.
The Imaginary Family Tree of Man
The Darwinist claim holds that modern men of today have evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
Australopithecines (plural form of Australopithecus)
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens
The evolutionists call the so-called first common ancestors of men and apes "Australopithecus" which means "South African apes". Australopithecus, nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct, has various types. Some of them are well built, and others are small and slim structured.
The evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo", that is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very much different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this species.
Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and lecture books, are included in one of the four species listed above. These species are also assumed to branch into sub-species.
Some transitional form candidates of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human evolution family tree after it was understood that they were ordinary apes. (61)
By outlining the link chain as "Australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these species are one another’s ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another.
Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists put forward. The fossils, which are claimed to be the ancestors of humans by evolutionists, in fact belong either to different human races or to ape species.
Then, which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered as a transitional form? In order to get the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.
Australopithecus : An Ape Species
Australopithecus, that is the first category, means "southern ape". It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago and they lived until 1 million years ago. There are some classes among Astralopithecines. The evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After that comes A. Africanus, which have slimmer bones, and then A. Robustus, which have relatively bigger bones. For A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species and some others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.
All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial volumes are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees just like today’s chimpanzees and their feet have grasping abilities to hold onto the branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today’s chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Many characteristics such as the details on their skulls, the closeness of the eyes, sharp molar teeth, mandibular structure, long arms, short legs, are evidence to show that these living beings were no different from today’s apes.
The evolutionists claim that although Australopithecines have the anatomy of an ape, they walked upright like humans and unlike apes.
This claim of "walking upright" is in fact a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists like Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of Australopithecines and proved the invalidity of this argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renown anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, has shown that these creatures were not bipedal and had the same sort of movement as today’s apes. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years with the provision supplied by the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of 5 specialists reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary ape species and definitely were not bipedal, although Zuckerman was an evolutionist himself. (62) Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans. (63) Finally, in 1994, a team from Liverpool University in England launched an extensive research to reach a definite conclusion. Finally, they concluded that "the Australopithecines are quadripedal". (64)
Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.
Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as Human
The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of Australopithecines and chimpanzees and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, caused great difficulty for the evolutionist paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecines. As the prefix "homo" meaning "human" implies, Homo erectus is a human class and its skeleton is straight. It cranial volume is two times bigger than that of Australopithecines. A direct transition from Australopithecines, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus that has a skeleton no different from modern man’s, is out of the question even according to the evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links", that is, "transitional forms" are needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.
The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960’s by the Leakeys who are "fossil hunters" as a whole family. According to the Leakeys, this new species which they classified as Homo habilis had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools, and had a relatively large cranial volume. Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.
New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980’s, were to completely change this view. Some researchers like Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis, which means "man capable of using tools" should be classified as Australopithecus habilis which means "South African ape capable of using tools", because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the apes named Australopithecines. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeleton structure just like Australopithecines. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Its mandibular structure was very similar to that of today’s apes. Their 550 cc cranial volumes were the best indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other Australopithecines.
Research carried out in years to come indeed demonstrated that Homo habilis was no different than Australopithecines. The skull and skeleton fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that this species had small cranial volume, and long arms and short legs which enabled them to climb trees, just like modern apes.
The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not "homo", in other words, "human", but "ape". About the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neandertalensis, Smith stated the following;
Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans. (65)
Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached the same conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining balance. The canals of humans walking straight differed considerably from those of apes who walked bent downwards. The inner ear canals of all Australopithecus and furthermore, Homo habilis specimens analysed by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld were the same as modern apes’. The inner ear canals of Homo erectus were the same as modern men’s. (66)
This finding yielded two important results:
Fossils referred to as Homo habilis actually did not belong to the classes of "homo", i.e. humans, but to those of Australopithecines, i.e. apes.
Both Homo habilis and Australopithecines were living things that had a bent stride, and therefore, the skeleton of an ape. They did not have any relation whatsoever with the humans.
Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joined
The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The class supposedly represented by this fossil was also designated as Homo rudolfensis for these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Rudolf River in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species but that the living being called Homo rudolfensis was in fact a Homo habilis.
Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull he named "KNM-ER 1470" and said to have 2.8 million years of age, as the greatest discovery of the history of anthropology and had a sweeping effect. According to Leakey, this being, which had a small cranial volume like Australopithecus and yet the face of a human, was the missing link between Australopithecus and human. Yet, after a short while, it was to be understood that the human-like face of KNM-ER 1470 skull which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific magazines was the result of the flawed joining of the skull fragments-which may have been deliberate. Prof. Tim Bromage, who made studies on human face anatomy, outlined this fact which he disclosed by the help of computer simulations in 1992:
When it (KNM-ER 1470) was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus. (67)
The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following on the matter:
... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A/ africanus. (68)
C. Loring Brace from Michigan University concluded the same as a result of the analyses he made on the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470 and said that the size of the jaw and of the part containing molars showed that ER 1470 had exactly the face and teeth of an Australopithecus." (69)
Prof. Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from John Hopkins University who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, defends that this living being should not be classified under a "homo", that is, human species such as Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, but on the contrary must be included under the Australopithecus species. (70)
In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis which are presented as transitional links between the Australopithecines and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. As confirmed by many researchers today, these living beings are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features disclose that they are each an ape species.
Following these creatures, each of which is an ape species, come the "homo" fossils which are human being fossils.
Homo Erectus and Thereafter: Real Human Beings
According to the fanciful scheme of evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo species is as follows: First Homo erectus, then Homo sapiens archaic and Neanderthal Man, later Cro-Magnon Man and finally modern man. However all these classifications are only original human races in reality. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and a black or a pygmy and a European.
Let us first examine Homo erectus, which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the word "erect" implies, "Homo erectus" means a "man walking upright". Evolutionists have had to separate these men from previous ones by adding the quality of "erectness", because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the Australopithecines or Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the skeleton of modern man and Homo erectus.
The primary reason for evolutionists in defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the volume of its skull (900-1100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same skull volume as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies) and there are some other races that have protruding eyebrows (for instance the Australian Aborigines).
It is a commonly agreed fact that differences in cranial volume do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation of the brain rather than its volume. (71)
The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the world are the fossils of Pekin Man and Java Man found in Asia. However it was understood in time that these two fossils were not reliable. Pekin Man consisted of some elements made of plaster whose originals were lost and Java Man was "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvis bone that was found meters away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same living being. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second class named "Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists. There is a disagreement between them on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus)
The most famous of Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was found near Lake Turkana Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright skeleton structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Concerning it, American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." (72) Concerning the skull, Walker said that "it looked so much like a Neanderthal." (73) As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
Even evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time (74)
Prof. William Laughlin from the Univercity of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations on Inuits and the people living in Aleut islands and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man).
When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen-ALC]belongs within this same diverse species. (75)
There is, on the other hand, a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and right away without any evolutionary history. There can be no clearer indication of their being created.
Yet, admitting this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of evolutionists. As a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their Homo-erectus reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On the other hand, with similar drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings and close the gap between these two distinct living classes.
Neanderthals: A Robust Human Race
Neanderthals are human beings who suddenly appeared 100 thousand years ago in Europe and disappeared-or were assimilated by being blended with other races-quietly yet quickly 35 thousand years ago. Their only difference from the modern man is their skeleton being more robust and their cranial volume slightly bigger.
Neanderthals are a human race and this fact is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as "a primitive species", yet all findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University writes:
Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. (76)
Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-species of modern man and call it "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". The findings testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens living during the same period. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time.
Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man
Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to say about these men, as there are only very minor differences between them and modern men. Some researchers even state that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to the Aborigines in Australia as an example. Like Homo sapiens, the Aborigines also have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller cranial volume. Moreover, significant discoveries have been made hinting that such people lived in Hungary and in some villages in Italy until not very long ago.
The group characterised as Homo heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as Homo sapiens archaic. The reason why two different terms are used to define the same human race is the conceptual differences among the evolutionists. All the fossils included under the Homo heilderbergensis classification suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500 thousand and even 740 thousand years earlier first in England and then in Spain.
It is estimated that the Cro-Magnon Man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.
Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the structure and volume of Cro-Magnon’s cranium look very much like that of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal races blended with each other and laid the foundations for the races of our day. Moreover, in our day, it is accepted that the representatives of the Cro-Magnon race still live in the different regions of the continent of Africa and the Salute and Dordogne regions of France. People bearing similar characteristics are also noted to be living in Poland and Hungary.
Species Living in the Same Age as Their Ancestors
What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture for us: The scenario of "human evolution" is totally a fiction. In order for such a family tree to exist, a gradual evolution from ape to man should have taken place and the fossil record of this process should have been found. However, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial volumes, and such criteria as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We mentioned that with a recent research done in 1994 on the balance canals of inner ear, Australopithecus and Homo habilis were classified as ape, while Homo erectus was classified as human.)
Another significant finding proving that there can be no family tree among these different species is that the species that are presented as ancestors of each other in fact lived concurrently. If, as the evolutionists claim, Australopithecus converted to Homo habilis and if they, in turn, converted to Homo erectus, the eras they lived in should necessarily have followed each other. However, there is no such a chronological order.
According to the estimates of evolutionists, Australopithecines lived from 4 million years ago up until 1 million years ago. Living beings classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7-1.9 million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as 2.5-2.8 million years! That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, of which it is supposed to be the "ancestor". On the other hand, the age of Homo erectus dates as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago, which means that Homo erectus specimens appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-called ancestor, that is, Homo habilis.
Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is evidence from East Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that were contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus." (77) Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus almost next to each other in Olduvai Gorge region, Bed II layer. (78)
Most certainly there is no such family tree. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould explains this deadlock of evolution although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth. (79)
When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, we again see that there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence showing that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued living up to 27,000 years and even 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow swamp in Australia, some 13,000 year-old Homo erectus skulls have been found. On Java Island, a Homo erectus skull was found that was 27,000 year-old. (80)
The Secret History of Homo Sapiens
The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly old history of modern man. Paleoanthropological data reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us lived as long as one million years ago.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings concerning this subject. In 1932, in Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene Age and that were no different from modern man. However, Middle Pleistocene Age means a million years ago. (81) Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his estimates were correct.
Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history of Homo Sapiens was much older than assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil belonged to the face of an 11 year old boy who looked entirely like modern men. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue .
This fossil even shook the convictions of Ferreras, who was leading the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:
We expected something big, something large, something inflated... you know, something "primitive". Our expectation of an 800,000 years old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular... These are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it’s okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like... like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face it’s the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it. (82)
The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800 thousand years ago. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the evolutionary family tree, no Homo sapiens should ever have lived 800 thousand years ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary species called "Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca skull under this classification.
A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old and Footprints of Modern Man 3.6 Million Years Old!
There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates even earlier than 800 thousand years. One of them is the discovery of Louis Leakey made in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that the Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo erectus species co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, Leakey found the remains of a stone-hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only be constructed by Homo sapiens! So, according to the findings of Leakey, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago. (83) This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from any ape-like species like Australopithecus.
Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these most important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.
The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists like Don Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:
Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. (84)
After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from North California University made the following comments:
The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do-and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe... The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms. (85)
Examinations made on the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and more, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle who examined the footprints wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans. (86)
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a 10 year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly modern people like ourselves.
This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions for years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During 1990s, this "explanation" started to take shape. The evolutionists decided that these footprints should have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a homo species to exist 3.6 years ago. Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in his article dated 1990:
In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. (87)
To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by Australopithecus was the 3.6 million year old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus on the assumption that humans could not have lived at such an early age.
These interpretations of the Laetoli prints show us a very important reality. Evolutionists support their theory not by considering scientific findings but despite them. Here we have a theory that is being blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that are against the theory being either ignored or distorted to serve its purposes.
Briefly, the evolutionary theory is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.
The Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution
Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unclosable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these gaps has to do with the manner of walking.
Human beings walk upright on their two feet. This is a very special kind of motion not seen in any other species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on two hind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to reach a source of food and then only for a short time. Normally their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours.
Well then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadripedal stride of monkeys as the evolutionists claim?
Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism has never occurred, nor is it possible for it to have occurred. First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which monkeys move is much easier, faster, and more efficient than man’s bipedal stride. Man can neither move by jumping from tree to tree without stepping on the ground like a chimpanzee, nor run with a speed of 125 kms an hour like a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on his two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of the most unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. According to the logic of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride: humans should instead have evolved to become quadripedal.
Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadripedalism. However, with the computerised research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Cromptom reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright or on all fours. (88) A type of stride in-between cannot be possible because of extreme energy consumption. This is why it is impossible for a half-bipedal being to exist.
The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained such as brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter:
Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do not yet know'. The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers. (89)
Evolution: An Unscientific Faith
Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many detailed investigations. He was honoured with the title of "Lord" for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution can not be regarded as deliberately perverse remarks. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no such family tree in truth.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science". He formed a spectrum of sciences ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman’s spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, depending on concrete data-fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific", are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense-and finally "human evolution". Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. (90)
What, then, is the reason that make so many scientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why have they been trying so hard to keep their theory alive, at the cost of having to admit countless conflicts and discarding the evidence they have found?
The only answer is their being afraid of the fact they will have to face in case of abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact they will have to face when they abandon evolution is the fact that man has been created by Allah. However, considering the presuppositions they have and the materialistic philosophy they believe in, creation is an unacceptable concept for evolutionists.
For this reason, they deceive themselves, as well as the world, by using the media with which they co-operate. If they cannot find the necessary fossils, they "fabricate" them either in the form of imaginary pictures or fictitious models and try to give the impression that there indeed exist fossils verifying evolution. Some media organs who share their materialistic point of view also try to deceive the public and instil the story of evolution in people’s subconscious.
No matter how hard they try, the truth is evident: Man has come into existence not through an evolutionary process but by having been created by Allah. Therefore, he is responsible to Him however unwilling he may be to assume this responsibility.
ANCIENT MARINERS:
"Early humans were much smarter than we suspected..."
News published in New Scientist on March 14th 1998 tells us that the humans called Homo Erectus by evolutionists were practicing seamanship 700 thousand years ago. These humans, who had enough knowledge and technology to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, can hardly be called "primitive".
(sorry agains it's long but here's the last bit...)