The evolutionists benefit mostly from the fact that the findings of fossil 
records can be open to discussion. The fossils are usually not sufficient to 
make a sound analysis. Actually, they are comprised of incomplete and 
fragmented bone pieces. This is the reason why it is so easy to distort the 
available data and use them in the desired way.

The theory of evolution is turned into a life style, a mode of thinking and 
even an ideology rather than a theory by its followers, and within its 
scope, no need is felt to avoid from distorting the data or even making up 
more serious forgeries. An extremist advocate of the evolutionary ideology, 
for instance, does not hesitate to make distortion to be able to interpret 
each finding of the fossil records in favor of the theory of evolution.

David Pilbeam, who is an anthropologist in Harvard University explains the 
influence of the ideological expectations on interpreting fossil records as 
follows:

"Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data… We are unaware of many of our assumptions." [1]

The fact that fossil records are open to all kinds of interpretations, 
raises doubt on the reliability of even the whole science of 
paleoanthropology which is mostly under disposition of the evolutionists. 
Pilbeam described how subjective the evolutionists were while interpreting 
the fossils and how they held certain prejudices and expectations:

In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed 
somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit 
assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking. Theories 
have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the 
actual data… I am more somber than I once was about what the unwritten past 
can tell us." [2]

Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleonthropologist of Birmingham University 
in England states how ideological expectations shape the way of thinking:

"…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." [3]

The evolutionists illustrate the form of nose, lips, hair, eyebrows, which 
do not leave any fossil traces, in their pictures and reconstructions. They 
do not only draw the physical appearances of these false beings, but prepare 
detailed images of their social life; walking with their families, hunting, 
or in any other phase of their -would be- ordinary lives. People coming 
across with these professionally drawn half man-half ape beings in the 
books, or periodicals may be convinced that ape-like men lived, and the 
contemporary man evolved through such process. However these kinds of 
drawings and pictures are only deceits.

Do the 'Ancestor of Man' Drawings Reflect Truth?

Since fossil records are usually disordered and incomplete, the evaluation 
based on them would be totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the 
reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on the 
fossil remains, are treated in a speculative way just to validate the 
evolutionary thesis. Since people are highly affected by visual information, 
the aim is to make them believe that these reconstructed creatures really 
existed in the past.

Just for this reason, the reconstructions of fossils are always designed to 
meet the needs of the evolution theory. Evolutionist researchers often set 
out from a single tooth, a mandibular fragment or even a tiny bone of the 
arm, and draw human-like imaginary creatures, then present these to the 
public opinion as a link of the evolution of man. These drawings and 
reconstructions have indeed played an important role in the visualization of 
the "primitive man" image in the minds of people.

Reconstructions based on remains of bones can only reveal the general 
characteristics of the object. Yet, the real designating details are soft 
tissues that quickly vanish in time. Therefore, with the speculative 
interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawing or model 
becomes totally dependent on the imagination of the person constructing it. 
Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University, explains the situation as below:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous under-taking. 
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 philosopher. These 
alleged restorations of ancient types of a man have very little if any 
scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your 
trust in reconstructions. [4]

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "pompous stories" that they 
even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, three different 
reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus 
(Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of such a forgery.

Another example to these kinds of frauds is the Haeckel's case. The drawings 
of Haeckel are still presented by evolutionists in numerous books although 
Haeckel himself interestingly confessed this deceit:

To cut short this unsavory dispute, I begin at my numerous drawings of 
embryos (perhaps six or eight percent) are in a sense falsified - all those, 
namely, for which the present material of observation is so incomplete of 
insufficient as to compel us, when we come to prepare a continuous chain of 
the evolutionary stages, to fill up the gaps by hypotheses, and to 
reconstruct the missing links by comparative syntheses… After this 
compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself 
condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by 
side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among 
them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The 
great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, 
treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the change of 
'forgery', for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, 
schematised and constructed. [5]

The biased interpretation of fossils or fabrication of many imaginary 
reconstructions out of these, may be an indication of how frequently the 
evolutionists use tricks. Yet, these can be considered as innocent when 
compared to the concrete forgeries encountered in the evolution history.

Notes
1. David Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Nature, June, 1978, p.40.

2. Ibid., pp. 44-45.

3. Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger
    Publishing Company, 1971, p. 64.

4. Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: Taplinger 
    Publishing Company, 1971, p. 19.

5. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe Where Darwin Went Wrong, 
    New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p. 204.

INDEX

---

      Please send your comments to 
 webmaster9@mostmerciful.com