- THE EVOLUTION DECEIT -

 The Myth of Human Evolution 

Charles Darwin expressed his thoughts on the "evolution of man" firstly in his book named The Origin of Species published in 1859. In this book where he argued that living organisms evolved from each other, he did not actually advance a solid thesis on how man came into existence; but he covertly mentioned that there was an evolutionary relationship between men and the apes. In his book named The Descent of Man dated 1872, he clearly stated all his thoughts about the subject. According to Darwin, apes and men had common ancestors. With the effects of environmental conditions, these two species had gradually differentiated from each other and today's men and apes have evolved. 
 
Darwin held no evidence at hand except for his creative imagination. Not being able to go further than a fantasy, his theory started receiving criticisms from the first day of its declaration on, for not resting on any known scientific basis. However, those who embraced the theory as a liberator in consort with their ideological concerns immediately started making extensive investigations hoping to find any evidence to evolution. 
 
Firstly the geological layers and fossil records were scrutinized. The purpose was to generate an evolutionary connection from the fossils of the past living things. Under these conditions arose paleontology and paleoanthropology as new sciences for examining and interpreting these fossil records. Gathering human fossils of various bygone races and numerous ape fossils of different species, the paleoanthropologists made an imaginary diagram of "the evolution of man" by arranging these fossils as they liked. This imaginary evolution diagram which was entirely based on expectations, assumptions and actually "wishful thinking", was prepared at the beginning of the 1850's and reached until today undergoing lots of modifications. 
 
On the first step of this imaginary evolution diagram is a hypothetical "common ancestor" which has not yet been discovered. According to this story, the primitive man diverted from this common ancestor 7 million years ago through evolution and gradually developed into a bipedal man by time who well adopted to walking skills in about 3-4 million years. These creatures named "Australopithecus" (South African monkey) evolved into "Homo habilis" who were able to use tools; and Homo habilis were replaced by "Homo erectus" which were upright walking men from the beginning of the year of 1.8 million. Homo erectus were respectively followed by "Homo sapiens archaic" which is not much different from today's man, "Homo sapiens neanderthalis", "Cro-magnon man" and the modern human being named "Homo sapiens sapiens".  
 
Here is the core of this story. The basic goal of the theory of evolution is actually to impose this theory on people as if it were true by using all kinds of methods. During this course, psychological methods are also employed in addition to the "scientific" ones. Giving attractive names to the skull fossils found, arranging these one after the other in an array and delineating them in diagrams, are the most apparent methods used for psychological persuasion purposes. The "scientific" atmosphere created with the effect of these Latin names is enough to convince the "ordinary man" that these imaginary species created on paper really existed. 
 
However, the truth is quite different. The skulls presented as the various phases of human evolution do not belong to "transitional forms" in between a man and an ape, but either to some ape species who have already become extinct or to different man races. A research conducted on the subject is apt to reveal the reality explicitly and demonstrate to the public how shallow and rootless this fallacy carried out under the enchantment of Latin skull names is. 
 
We are going to investigate the issue together in the following pages: 
 

Fossil Records and the Biased Interpretations of the Evolutionists

Fossil records constitute the primary source for the evolutionists who look for evidence for the theory of evolution. The fossil records contain the remains of past men. When examined objectively and attentively, it is seen that the fossil records are not in favor of the evolutionary theory, but against it in contrary to the assertions of the evolutionists. However, since these fossils are incorrectly portrayed by the evolutionists and reflected to public opinion with prejudices, many people believe that the fossil records actually verify the theory of evolution. 
 
The evolutionists benefit mostly from the fact that findings of fossil records are open to all kinds of discussion. The uncovered 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 defenders, and within its scope, no need is felt to avoid from distorting the data or even committing more serious forgeries. An extremist advocate of the evolutionary ideology, for instance, does not hesitate to make any kind of 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."
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 the 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."
Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleontologist 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."

  Trickery in Reconstruction 

Since fossil records are usually unorganized and incomplete, the estimations 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 in consort with the evolutionary thesis. Since people are highly influenced from visual data, the aim is to make them believe that these reconstructed creatures have really existed in the past. 

Just for this reason, the reconstructions of fossils and skulls are always designed to meet the needs of the evolutionary 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 sensationally 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 the bone remains can only reveal the general characteristics of the object at hand. Yet, the real designating details are soft tissues that vanish quickly in time. Therefore, with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawing or model becomes totally dependent upon 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.
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.  
 

Forgeries Done On Behalf of the Theory

Some of the evolutionists who could not find any substantial evidence in the fossil records, finally decided to create their own evidence themselves. These studies were even included in encyclopedias under titles like evolution conspiracies, and this is the best proof revealing that the theory of evolution is an ideology or a life philosophy that is sought to be kept upright with great effort. The most well-known of these conspiracies are stated below: 
 

Piltdown Man

A well known doctor and also an amateur paleontologist Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he found a jaw bone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Despite the jaw bone was ape-like, the teeth and the skull were looking like a man's. These specimens were designated after as "Piltdown man", determined to be dating back to 500 thousand years and displayed as an absolute proof for the evolution of man in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on it, many interpretations and drawings were made and it was presented as an important evidence for the evolution of man. 

The discovery of Piltdown man aroused enthusiasm in paleoanthropology circles, and gave way to new arguments. The famous English anthropologist G.E.Smith expressed his own thoughts over the discussion of "Did brain or body of the man evolve first?". 

    The outstanding interest of the Piltdown skull is in the confirmation it affords of the views that in the evolution of Man the brain led the way. It is the veriest truism that Man has emerged from the simian state in virtue of the enrichment of the structure of his mind? The brain attained what may be termed the human rank at a time when the jaws and face, and no doubt the body also, still retained much of the uncouthness of Man's simian ancestors. In other words, man at first? was merely an Ape with overgrown brain. The importance of the Piltdown skull lies in the fact that it affords tangible confirmation of these inferences.
Famous American paleoanthropologist H.F.Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and that the order of the universe is not the human order." when he was visiting the British Museum in 1921. 
 

Bringing a Hoax into Daylight

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from British Museum's paleontology department attempted to try the method of  "fluorine test", a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was made on the Piltdown man's fossil. The result was very astounding. During the test, it was realized that the jaw bone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluor. This indicated that the chin bone was under the ground 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 researches made with the fluorine method revealed that the skull was only a few thousand years old. It was manifested that the teeth in the jaw bone belonging to an orangutan were worn out artificially, and the primitive tools found next to the fossils were simple imitations sharpened by steel devices."
Along with these fossils were found some extinct elephant fossils and some tool remains made out of the bones of the same elephant species. These elephant fossils were used in the dating of the skull. In the tests, it was understood that these elephant fossils were indeed old. However, the jaw bone and the skull were quite new to be at the same age with the elephant fossils. What did all these indicate? Cottrel explains that the Piltdown ivory fossil had probably been found in Africa and then placed into the Piltdown cave. To claim that the false skull was as old as the elephant fossil. As the researchers studied on the other animal fossils found in the same region, they found out that these were also superficially brought there. The piltdown (bone tool) was seen to be a mere elephant fossil shaped with a steel knife. And the flint tools were artificially rust colored neolitichic fossils which. 
 
PILTDOWN MAN FORGERY: This fake fossil that occupied the scientific circles for a long time, displayed how far the wish to prove the theory of evolution could go. It was only revealed in 1952 that this  fossil found in 1912 and named as Piltdown man was actually produced by assembling an ape's jaw to a human skull. Above left: The architect of this forgery Charles Dawson is seen near the Piltdown ditch in England. Above right, the skull and jaw bones that are found. Below left is the reconstruction and below right is its animation.
 
In the detailed analysis completed by Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros Clark and J.S.Weiner; this forgery was definitely made public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500 year old man, and the chin bone belonged to an ape recently died. The teeth were thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filled in order to resemble it to that of a man's. Then all these pieces were stained with potasiumdichromat for a dated appearance. These stains were disappearing when dipped in acid. Le Gros Clark who was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not hide his astonishment against this situation: 
    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?
As the success of this forgery had even erred the best known experts, famous paleoantropologist Sir Solly Zuckerman said: "As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all. The story of the Piltdown Man hoax provides a pretty good answer." 
 

 Nebraska Man

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn the manager of American Museum of Natural History, declared that he found a fossil molar tooth in West Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to Pliocene Period. This tooth was allegedly carrying the common characteristics of both a man and an ape. Very deep scientific arguments started and some people interpreted this tooth as Pithecanthropus erectus, and some others claimed it was closer to human beings. This fossil that became a matter of argument, was called the "Nebraska man". Its "scientific Latin name" was also given right away: "Hesperopithecus haroldcook II". 

Many authorities gave support to Osborn. Based on this one tooth, the reconstruction pictures of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even the pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting. 

All of these scenarios were developed just from one tooth. Evolutionist circles endorsed this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed to these biased decisions given by relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized. 

Yet, in 1927 the other parts of the skeleton were also found. This tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape. It was realized that this tooth belonged to an extinct and wild American pig species named Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his article published in the Science magazine where he announced this error as: "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Men". 

Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcook II and his family were removed immediately from the evolutionary literature with haste. 

Ramapithecus

Ramapithecus is known to be the biggest and longest lasting fallacies of the theory of evolution. This name was given to the fossil records found in India in 1932 which were allegedly to be the first stage of the split between the man and the ape which occurred 14 million years ago. It was used as a solid evidence by the evolutionists for 50-years long, from the day it was found in 1932, to the day it was revealed to be a total error in 1982. 

American evolutionist Dr. Elwyn Simons wrote in Scientific American of May 1977 about Ramapithecus: "This extinct primate is the earliest hominid, or distinctively manlike, member of man's family tree. The finding of many new specimens of it has clarified its place in human evolution?" Simons then added confidently, "Ramapithecus has most often been identified as a member of man's own hominid line." 

The importance of Ramapithecus in human evolution was expressed in Simon's article in Time dated November 1977. He stated: "Ramapithecus structured to be an ancestor of man. If he isn't, we don't have any clue." 

Also in our country, the book named Modern Biology published by Ministry of Education in 1979 written by Sevinç Karol and his associates, vigorously accepted the idea of Ramapithecus: It was stated without doubt that "the oldest known ancestor of human was Ramapithecus (tailless ape) which was identified from the jaw and teeth fossils found in Africa and India." 

However, if these people had read the article of Robert Eckhardt published in Scientific American in 1972, they would surely not speak with such a self-confidence. Eckhardt made 24 different measurements on the teeth of Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus (an extinct gorilla species). He then compared these measurements with those he had made on the chimpanzees. According to these comparisons, the difference between the measurements of the teeth of the living chimpanzees was bigger than the difference between Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus. Eckhardt summarizes the outcome of his studies as follows: 

    Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it man's ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no.
The famous paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey had some suspicions about Ramapithecus just like Eckhardt. According to Leakey, it was too early to reach to a definite judgment about Ramapithecus which was comprised of nothing but a few bones. Leakey summarized his ideas as: "The case for Ramapithecus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragmentary material leaves many questions open." 

It was known for a very long time that in contrary to the "U" shaped jaw bone of the apes, the humans had a parabolic chin structure which would allow them to speak. And it was assumed that Ramapithecus had a parabolic chin structure just like the human beings. 

However, the erroneous reconstructional drawings coded YPM 13799 made by Elwyn Simons in 1961, based on the mandibular bones of Ramapithecus showed parabolic structure except for the incisory teeth. This reconstruction was accepted by most writers and used in their studies. In 1969, Genet-Varcin pair showed that by using the same pieces, it was possible to make totally different reconstuructions with a "U" shape just like it was in the monkeys. Besides, there were many species within the extant apes which showed Pithecanthropus characteristics. A baboon species, living in the higher regions of Ethiopia (Theropithecus galada) had a short but deep face structure and more little incisory and carpenter teeth than the other apes, just like Ramapithecus and Australopithecine

On the left is the skull of a contemporary orangutan, and on the right is the jaw bone of the fossil Ramapithecus. As observed, Ramapithecus can not be distinguished from an orangutan both in terms of its mandibular structure and teeth characteristics. 
 
To sum up; the three most well-known forgeries of the evolutionists are the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and Ramapithecus. It was understood that in the case of the Piltdown man, a jaw bone and cranial fragment presented as important evidences to the evolution of man and allegedly were 500 years old, were in fact buried under the ground by the evolutionists on purpose. The cranium actually belonged to a human being and the jaw bone to an ape; these were also suitably treated by the evolutionists to give them a patina of age. In the case of the Nebraska man, they had gone further and made the picture of a creature who allegedly proved the evolution, from setting out from a molar tooth fossil. He was even pictured along with his wife and family. Then, it was understood that this tooth belonged to an extinct pig species. Ramapithecus was also one of the biggest fallacies of the theory of evolution. This incidence was about the subjective exertion of an extinct ape species as an evidence to the evolution of man. 

Piltdown man, Nebraska man and fossils such as Ramapithecus are clear evidences indicating that evolutionists do not hesitate to make forgeries or distort the truth plainly in order to prove their own theories. When we look at the other so-called evidences of the legend of "the evolution of man" in the light of these truths, we face a similar situation: There exists a story that is completely unreal and an army of  volunteers who would do anything to support this hoax. 

In the following pages, we are going to depict the inside story of the evolution of man, by inspecting consecutively the fossils shown as evidence to the theory. 

The Imaginary Evolution of Man

The theory of evolution is based on the hypothesis that the contemporary man of today has evolved from its primate (ape) ancestors splitting off from them 4-10 million years ago. Although no consensus has been reached by the evolutionary researchers, the generally accepted list of imaginary ancestors of today's man are as follows: 

-Australopithecus or "South African ape" 
-Homo habilis or "tool using man" 
-Homo erectus or "upright walking man" 
-Archaic homo sapiens or "old modern man" 
-Homo sapiens sapiens or "modern man" 
 
According to the evolutionists the first ancestors of man called Australopithecus, were creatures which had some humanlike but mostly apelike characteristics. Some species of the Australopithecus have allegedly become extinct and the others have developed into the Homo (human) series. According to the evolutionists, the Australopithecus series had mainly apelike characteristics and the Homo series had common characteristics with the man of our day. Especially Homo erectus and its subsequents were almost identical with the contemporary man. 

Today there are 200 species of apes still extant. However, it is assumed that there have been more than 6500 species of primates that have lived in ancient times and are extinct now. According to the estimates of the scientists, only 3% of these primates are known. The animals called Australopithecus by the evolutionists are actually extinct apes which share some common structural characteristics with today's apes. 

The most important point that deserves focus in examining the fossils are the criteria employed by the evolutionists while evaluating the fossils. The primary criteria used in categorising and evaluating the human fossils are; bipedalism (that is upright walking), cranial capacity and cranial shape. Various classifications are done according to these criteria. 

Yet, some of these criteria, especially the cranial capacity, are quite unreliable. For example, the cranial capacity of a contemporary ape is maximum 750 cc. The cranial capacity of men surge between 900-2200 cc. Among the Australian Aborigin natives, there are quite a number of individuals who have a brain of around 850 cc.. And the cranial capacity may change depending on the age and sex. This is why many specialists reach to the mutual agreement that the cranial capacity is not a reliable means of measurement. 

The shape of the cranium is yet another criteria. The craniums of ape fossils and the craniums of today's apes are very similar to each other. The craniums of the apes are narrow and long. There is a protruding part on the top of many of these craniums which helps the jaw muscles to hang on. Also in some ape species, there are ridges on top of the eyebrows called "suborbital taurus". The eyes are very close to each other. Incisory teeth are big and very sharp. The molar teeth change according to the species and the feeding habits of the apes. The jaw is again dependent on the species of the ape, having either a U or a V shape. 

However, human craniums are large volumed with wide foreheads. The skull is flat (there are no protrusions). Eyes are wide apart. The shape of the eyebrow ridges above the eyes change according to the human race. In the black and white races, this ridge exists very slightly. Yet, in some other races these ridges are evident. In addition, the mandibles of humans are very much different from that of the apes having a parabolic structure. The incisory teeth are small and molar teeth in normal dimensions. 

When the postcranium is examined; the most characteristic criteria are revealed. Arms of the apes are long and their legs are short. Their feet and fingers have grasping abilities. All apes are quadropedal. The entire skeleton is designed for a quadropedal body structure. They can stand on their two feet rarely, only when they want to reach somewhere and get something. They spend most of their time on all fours. 

Bipedalism is a characteristic only of human beings and this quality is the most distinctive factor that distinguishes human beings from other animals. A human's hip, pelvis, and back bone and his spinal cord, shortly, all parts of his skeleton are designed for bipedalism. 

Therefore, while interpreting the uncovered fossils, the most important and binding criteria should be bipedalism. Bipedalism is the most substantial factor that distinguishes the humans from apes. This is why the focal point of the arguments must consist of whether various living things at issue walk upright or not. 

The beings that the theory of evolution presents as transitional links between humans and apes, are either quadropedal apes or human beings who carry some "racial" characteristics within their structure but have no common similarities with the apes. 

After this short introduction, we may start examining the supposedly fossils of the evolution myth. The first part of the story is the Australopithecus who is declared to be the first transitional link from the apes to the humans. 

The Real Story of  the Australopithecus

All present Australopithecus fossils were found in the south region of Africa. The reason why this species is named Australopithecus, meaning "South African ape" is because these animals have very similar characteristics to the apes living in our day. Male Australopithecus are between 1-1.20 meter tall. The height of female Australopithecus is only the half of the male's just like contemporary apes. 

The first fossils which were alleged to belong to this species were found in a coal mine in 1924 in South African Taung region. The first fossil defined as Australopithecus consisted of the face and mandibulars of a young ape and a 410 cc. cranial capacity. The discoverers of the fossil took it to professor Dr. Raymond Dart, a professor of anatomy, from Witwater University. 

Relying on the slim structure of the cranium of this fossil and thinking that its teeth looked similar to that of the human beings, Dr. Raymond Dart inferred that it was a hominid fossil. After a short while, an article named "Australopithecus: Ape Man in South Africa" was published in the Nature magazine. Scientists of that period who stated that the fossil actually belonged to a chimpanzee, did not really take Dart very seriously. However, insisting that the fossil was a hominid; Dart persuaded the famous physicist Dr. Robert Broom about the subject and he dedicated the rest of his life to collect support for this new species he found. Interestingly enough, his fossil was named as "Dart baby" in a derisive manner in the science circles. Later on, the evolutionists adopted this fossil and invented a new species called Australopithecines. They allocated the first fossil they found as "Australopithecus africanus". 

After the discovery of this fossil which was named as "Taung Child" for being supposed to belong to an infant, primarily the Leakey family and other paleoanthropologists accelerated their researches. During the excavations made with the financial support of National Geographic Magazine, other fossils were also found in South African Kromdraii, Swartkrans and Makapansgat which were assumed to be Australopithecus again. Some of these ape fossils had a coarser structure whereas others were slimmer, smaller and more slender. The fossil which had a coarser structure was heavier and larger than the other one, had a bigger mandible and a bonelike protrusion over its cranium as its most outstanding feature. Although all of these qualities were typical examples of sexual differentiation between male and female apes of today, the scientists interpreted them persistently as different species. 

In reality, these fossils had not evolved from each other; but were only individuals from different sexes of the same species. The fact that these fossils were found to be belonging to the same period provided another conclusive evidence to this reality. Yet, all of these substantial facts were overlooked and the slim and slender fossils started to be referred to as "Australopithecus boisei", while those with a coarser structure were referred to as "Australopithecus robustus". These still maintain their positions in the evolutionary literature as the most important pieces of the evolution of man. 

A Young Ape: Australopithecus Africanus 

Dart had received considerable reactions from contemporary scientists after his presentation of the fossil named Australopithecus africanus. Arthur Keith, prominent anatomist at the time, commented on the fossil found by Dart and stated the following: 
    (Dart's) claim is preposterous, the skull is that of a young anthropoid ape...and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group.
According to the evolutionist paleoanthropologists, the common characteristic of Australopithecus and human beings was their adaptation to bipedalism after leaving the trees. Dart was led to the idea that the "Taung child" fossil he had found could stand on its two legs due to the reason that the part of the skull named "magnum", through which the spinal cord enters the skull, was more backwards than the human being's and more forward than the ape's. Setting out from this point, he argued that this animal could stand on its two feet. This theory which was repudiated by the scientists of that time, made a return in the 1950's. Yet, not a single piece of skeleton existed that could be shown as evidence for the assertion of bipedalism. The specimens in hand consisted of a cranium and some thigh bones, hip bone and foot bone in a very disorderly condition. Despite the scarcity of evidence, the evolutionists persisted on their claim of bipedalism.  

Lord Zuckermann (Dr. Solly Zuckermann) was maybe one of the people in the world who examined the Australopithecines family in the most detailed fashion. Although he was an evolutionist, Zuckermann thought that the Australopithecus was nothing but an ape. Using the most developed anatomical research methods with his team of four people, Zuckermann declared in his research which started in 1954 and lasted for a few years, that these creatures could not stand on their two feet and did not have a form between man and ape. Lord Zuckermann and his team's conclusion report included following results: although these creatures were not similar to any of the primates living today, they also had no similarity with mankind. In their finale report, Lord Zuckerman and his team stated these creatures could not also be claimed to have relationship with the human kind although they are not alike any primate living today. Claiming that these creatures were able to stand up and walk still was much more refutable than the theory that they could walk as a varient of the non-human primates. This is the reason why this theory cannot be acceptable. 
 

AUSTRALOPITHECUS 
AFRICAN APE  
On the left and below is seen the first fossil "Taung Child" which was included in the Australopithecus africanus species. This fossil actually belongs to an infant ape. 
 
 
Australopithecus africanus 
Australopithecus africanus, Sts 71 skull and Sts 36 jaw bone: This two-fragmented illustration is defined as an adolescent member of A. africanus. Belonging to an extinct ape, this fossil bears great resemblance to the skull of the orangutans of our day. 
 
These arguments stated by Zuckermann during 1950's were also approved by the researchers that emerged afterwards. Dean Falk who was a brain specialist expressed in an article published in 1975 that the Taung cranium belonged to a newborn ape. 
    Like humans, (apes and monkeys) go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans."
It is important to point out that the absence of brow ridges which renders the Australopithecus africanus to be defined as a hominid, is a feature also displayed in the young gorillas living today. 

Thus it is revealed that, this skull named Australopithecus africanus by the evolutionists does not belong to an ancestor of the human beings; but rather to a skinny, and most probably a young ape. 

The fouls of the evolutionists were not limited by Australopithecus africanus. All the other members of the Australopithecus series were also merely apes. In accordance with their expectations, the evolutionists interpreted some characteristics of these apes to be hominid. However, the researches reveal that all of the Australopithecus are similar to the contemporary apes of today in all respects such as the stride style, brain volume, skull morphology and skeleton structure. 

Australopithecines: An Ordinary Quadropedal Ape Species

Animals named as "Australopithecines" are introduced by the evolutionists as living beings that are able to stand on their two feet but possess underdeveloped brains and skeletons. Although some of these scientists admitted that Australopithecus are similar to apes in many primitive aspects, they advanced a very important argument relating it to a human: They allegedly claimed that Australopithecus walked like today's human beings. 

On the contrary, the latest scientific researches indicated that Australopithecus, which is a species found in 1920's, were definitely not bipedal. The assertions putting forward that these were bipedal can only rest upon wrong and biased interpretations of their anatomy. 

Charles Oxnard, an anatomy professor from Chicago University, is one of the most appealed evolutionist sciencemen who is shown as reference on the subject of Australopithecus. Relying on his researches about Australopithecus fossils, Oxnard declared as follows that these fossils did not belong to a transitional being between apes and men, therefore it was not true that these had kinship with human beings; 

    An important part of today's convential wisdom about human evolution is based on studies of teeth, jaws and skull fragments of australopithecine fossils. These all indicate that the close relation of australopithecine to the human lineage may not be true. All these fossils are both different than gorillas, chimpanzees and men. Studying as a group, Australopithecine seems more like to orang-utan. 
Oxnard also stated that this species could only walk on all fours: 
    But because the muscular features of the pelvis are positioned in a way more like those of the great apes, we must estimate that their muscular arrangements were therefore rather similar to those associated with climbing and perhaps quadrupedalism? which parallels most closely he orang-utan, and contrasts markedly with man who has big articular surfaces in the leg compared with the arm. They may have been bipedal in a way that is no longer seen, but have retained abilities for climbing, and perhaps minor arboreal acrobatics such as might be found in an intermediately sized ape-like creature. 
Dean Falk, a brain specialist who has conducted researches more recently on four different types of Australopithecus fossils said that these were nothing but apes. Since 1985, many ape-like characteristics of Australopithecuses, much more than previously supposed, have been found. Opinions regarding Taung and other Australopithecuses have reversed. Studies of young researchers like Bill Jungers , Holly Smith, Tim Bromage, Mike Vannier, and Glenn Conroy are now being questioned. The supporters of the judgment "Australopithecus is man-like" are not the majority now? The morphology of Australopithecuses is exteremely similar to the apes'. 

The bipedalism feature attributed to Australopithecus was rooted in the erroneous and biased interpretation of their anatomies and lost its credibility by the evidences found in the course of time. Instead, it is said that Australopithecus generally walked on their two feet, but they were also adapted to climbing and using four feet. Yet, it is impossible to walk in this style. In order for a living being to use its energy optimally, it must either walk on its four feet or two feet in an upright posture. It is not possible for a living being in between to carry on its existence and generation. This is why the bipedal model ascribed to the Australopithecus can be said to be totally imaginary. 

In his study titled The Antiquity of Human Walking, John R. Napier compares the walking styles of Australopithecus and human beings as follows: 

    ?in Australopithecus this stabilizing mechanism is imperfectly evolved? For Australopithecus walking was something of a jog frot. These hominids must have covered the ground with quick, rather short steps, with their knees and hips slightly bent; the prolonged stance phase of the fully human gait must surely have been absent. 
    Compared with man's stride, therefore, the gait of Australopithecus is physiologically inefficient. It calls for a dispcopoctionately high output of energy; indeed, Australopithecus probably found long-distance bipedal travel impossible. 
Robin Crompton who is a computer specialist has demonstrated that this kind of a "compound" walking style is not possible in the studies he made in 1996. Crompton reached to the following conclusion: A living being can either walk fully upright or fully on its four feet. A living style in the midst is not possible because of high energy consumption. Therefore, Australopithecus can not be a half-bipedal animal as opposed to the claims of the evolutionists. Australopithecus is an ordinary ape that can only stand on all fours.  
 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STRIDES OF MEN AND APES 
The developments between the years 1994-1997, blew a big stroke on the assertions claiming Australopithecus to be the ancestor of man.  First of these was the studies made by Fred Spoor from Liverpool University. Spoor proved that none of the hominids except Homo erectus could walk upright on two feet. Second came the studies of an engineer named Robin Crompton. Crompton found that deformed stride increased energy consuption two times in the adults. That is to say that a living being should either be bipedal or quadropedal to be able to use his energy optimally. Thus it was revealed that Australopithecus were merely quadropedal apes. As seen in the two figures below, bipedalism and quadropedalism are two very different acts and a stride in between is impossible.  
 
 
The male gorilla cranium  is very similar to Australopithecus robustus.  
The projection over the skull is for the gripping of mandibular muscles. Thus chewing act becomes stronger. This feature is seen in all coarse structured Australopithecus. 
Australopithecus boisei seen above, is also named as OH 5 fossil "Nutcracker man". This is due to his extraordinarily huge molar teeth (on the right). The absence of fangs caused the jaw structure of the animal to be resembled to humans. In fact, the absence of fangs shows that this animal mainly feeds on plants. 
 
The researches made on Australopithecus by using the recent and most advanced technology, demonstrated that these creatures could not walk on their two feet and verified all the findings above. In 1994, Fred Spoor who is an anatomist in Liverpool University Human Anatomy and Cell Biology Department in England and his team of researchers making bipedalism studies on fossils, have investigated by using the most recent techniques if Australopithecus were bipedal or not. With the new technique they used in their researches, the team examined the involuntary-balancing mechanism in the ear cochlea of the fossils. Their findings can be summarized as follows; 
    "The upright posture and obligatory bipedalism of modern humans are unique among living primates. The evolutionary history of this behaviour has traditionally been pursued by functional analysis of the postcranial skeleton and the preserved footprint trails of fossil hominids. Here we report a systematic atempt to reconstruct the locomotor behaviour of early hominids by looking at a major component of the mechanism for the unconscious perception of movement, namely by examining the vestibular system of living primates and early hominids. High resolution computed tomography was used to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labybritine. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from Southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the great apes."
In the rest of their report, they go on to state that Australopithecus and hominid fossils of early Homo ages do not show a morphological structure in consort with the structure of the modern man. 

As revealed by all these researches, being just an ordinary ape species that lived in the past, all that Australopithecus could do was to stand on their two feet for very short intervals just like today's gorillas and bulky apes. Actually, the evolutionists who were aiming at finding an ape fossil that could walk on its two feet, advanced unreal assertions by making use of lack of information caused due to technological scarcity. 

Consequently, these improvements resulted in disagreements between palaeontologists regarding the direct kinship between Australopithecus and human beings. The reason is that, anybody who examines the given data objectively may easily realise that the body structure of Australopithecus is just the same as tailless huge apes still living today. Finding humanlike qualities in these animals can only be possible by a biased point of view and broad imagination. 

Similarities of Australopithecus and Orangutans

While including Australopithecus within the status of human beings' common ancestors; the evolutionists show several characteristics of their jaws and teeth as evidence to their claim. Australopithecus are introduced as a hominid with their relevantly smaller front teeth, worn out molar teeth, strong chewing muscles and a face with lesser depth. However, the structure of the teeth, jaw and face do not indicate that the animals called Australopithecus are common ancestors of human beings, but only reflect their environment and feeding habits. 

The teeth, mandible and face shape of Australopithecus fossils look like Gelada Baboons (Theropithecus) that feed on small items, rather than human beings. This characteristic of the Gelada Baboon that lives in upper parts of Ethiopia is observed in Ramapithecus which is proven to be an orangutan, as well as in Australopithecus. Evolutionist David Pilbeam describes this similarity which has misled many evolutionist researchers as below: 

    Theropithecus species (gelada baboons), both living and extinct, have large cheek teeth coupled with small incisors, contrasting with the relatively larger front teeth of species of Papio. Because of heavy use, geloda molars and premolars become packed close together and are heavily worn. Jolly relates the "Theropithecus complex", as he has called it, to the fact that these monkeys feed on small items -seeds, grass corms, and so forth- in large quantities. Such a diet requires large grinding cheek teeth and powerful masticatory muscles, while incisors are relatively unimportant. These features, and others, geladas share with the early hominids Ramapithecus and Australopithecus.
As seen, the structure of the teeth, jaw and face of Australopithecus can only show that this animal feeds on small and hard items. 

This situation elucidates the same fact: All members of the species denoted as Australopithecus by the evolutionists are actually extinct ape species. The variations and diversity within the ape species is so immense that it is very easy for a person who is taken by a dream of finding the ancestors of human beings to easily gather the human-like features of these and then call them as "pre-human" creatures. 

As a result, it can be said that all members of Australopithecus share similarities with the ape species living today. The idea that these may be the ancestors of human beings is totally a biased, partial and further, a rootless assertion. 

Australopithecus Afarensis or "Lucy"

Until 1974, the most primitive hominid fossils that the evolutionists had were Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus boisei and Australopithecus robustus. Yet, the fact that these fossils were too young to be the common ancestor of man and ape, was causing a gap in the theory of evolution. An older fossil had to be found as soon as possible. Finding out this imaginary common ancestor called as the "lost link", was almost a matter of honour for the evolutionists. Beginning from 1950's and up to 1970's, the absence of such a transitional form caused distress. 

While making excavations in Ethiopian Hadar Desert in 1974 to find the ancestors of man, the American paleoanthropologist Donald C. Johnson and French geologist Maurice Taieb found a skeleton estimated to be 3 million years old and preserved at a rate of 25%. A year later they found the skeleton fossils of 13 similar animals and included them within the Australopithecus species. As they thought that the first fossil had more apelike qualities than the others, they invented a new species named  "Australopithecus afarensis" and included it in this species. The fossil was named after as "Lucy". 

However, Lucy which was alleged to be the common ancestor of man was 1.20 meters tall and had a skull volume of 410 cc. which rendered its brain to be much smaller than even the ape standards of our day. Despite all these facts, this long armed and short legged ape which weighed 45 kg. in males and 29 kg. in females was still claimed to be the ancestor of man. 

Although the evolutionists knew that Lucy was merely an extinct ape species, they totally ignored its apelike qualities in order to maintain its status as the ancestor of man. This approach is still very common. In National Geographic's March 1996 issue, the result of the recent researches about Australopithecus afarensis are described as below: 

    "On the other hand, Randall Susman, Jack Stern and William Jungers of the State University of New York at Stony Brook see a curvature in Lucy's finger and toe bones resembling that found in tree-dwelling apes. Her longer arms certainly would have helped her climb between branches. The Stony Brook specialists also see evidence in Lucy's ankle and pelvis that suggests she would have walked with slightly bent legs. They reckon she spent considerable time in trees and may well have slept among the branches."
The most important reason why Lucy was alleged to be the ancestor of man lied in the belief that the animal walked upright. The fossil's anatomical structure was thought to reveal its bipedalism. Lucy's anatomy and its interpretations gave way to various discussions and the evolutionists were not able to reach to a consensus on the subject. The founder of the fossil, Donald C. Johnson, had stated in an article he wrote in 1994, that even the evolutionists could not reach to a common consent on Lucy's locomotion until then, and that all the assumptions on the subject could go no further than a hypothesis and speculation; 
    "The combination of a relatively short, but robust, humarus and a long forearm is unlikely to resolve the debate about locomotion in Australopithecus afarensis - which has been concerned as much with incompatible evolutionary models for the interpretation of functional morphology as with divergent interpretations of the fossils themselves."
Being admitted in the 1970's, the idea that Lucy walked completely upright started to be questioned even among the evolutionists along with the new researches completed. As more data  was compiled and new researchers treating the subject objectively brought new findings into daylight, these doubts started to be outspoken more frequently. 
 
Apes and some other animals have a limited ability to stand upright. Lucy's anatomic structure shows that it can stand on its two feet only as much as an ape. 
 
Apes and some other animals have a limited ability to stand upright. Lucy's anatomic structure shows that it can stand on its two feet only as much as an ape.  Each supplementary research disclosed Lucy's ape-like characteristics further. Some researchers compared the apes still living in our day with the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis species. One of these scientists was Adrienne L. Zhilman from the University of Santa Cruz. According to Zhilman, Australopithecus afarensis could be a variation of Pygmy Chimpanzees. Zhilman had made a comparison between Pygmy chimpanzees and Lucy, and declared how startling the similarities between the two were. Their body dimensions, body structures and cranial capacities were almost the same. Again according to Zhilman, the way that Pygmy Chimpanzees used their arms and feet was very much similar to Lucy. 
 
 
 
Apes and some other animals have a limited ability to stand upright. Lucy's anatomic structure shows that it can stand on its two feet only as much as an ape. 

Each supplementary research disclosed Lucy's ape-like characteristics further. Some researchers compared the apes still living in our day with the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis species. One of these scientists was Adrienne L. Zhilman from the University of Santa Cruz. According to Zhilman, Australopithecus afarensis could be a variation of Pygmy Chimpanzees. Zhilman had made a comparison between Pygmy chimpanzees and Lucy, and declared how startling the similarities between the two were. Their body dimensions, body structures and cranial capacities were almost the same. Again according to Zhilman, the way that Pygmy Chimpanzees used their arms and feet was very much similar to Lucy. 

Briefly, Lucy's skeleton and anatomy ascertained the fact that this creature could not walk upright as asserted. In addition to this fact, its cranial capacity which is even too small for an ape, its small body, long arms and legs, curved hand and foot bones prove that this living being carried no humanlike qualities. 

Another evidence of the fact that  Australopithecus afarensis is an ape, is its teeth array. In the evolutionist literature, it is stated that the teeth array structure of Australopithecus afarensis was between men and apes. Whereas, the teeth and mandibular structure of Australopithecus afarensis look very similar to that of Ramapithecus which today has been included in the orangutan class. 

This is the reason why many evolutionists, who take the ape-like features of Lucy into account, place it in the evolutinary chain of apes instead of the evolutinonary chain of men and define them as the ancestors of apes. In an article titled "Man's Roots in Question" published in New Scientist magazine in 1997, it is stated: 

    "The earliest fossils that appear to be human are about 4.4 million years old. But if Easteal is right, these "human" fossils are not human after all. 
    His results also suggest that Australopithecus africanus, a descendant of A.afarensis, did not die out, as most anthropologists believe, but was the ancestor of chimps. Another descendant of A.afarensis , Australopithecus robustus, which anthropologists believe also died out, could be the ancestor of gorillas. This would also explain why there are no fossil records of ancient chimpanzees and gorillas, says Easteal." 
This situation implies that although the evolutionists do not openly declare, it is clearly acknowledged that Australopithecus afarensis, which was sought to be brought to the status of the ancestor of man with big hopes, is merely an extinct ape species. Instead of throwing this species on which they spent so much effort aside, some evolutionists still try to use it in another evolution legend, namely in the evolution scheme drawn for the ape species. 
 
 
A supposed A. afarensis colony is pictured during a stride. This drawing published in one of the leading evolutionist publications, National Geographic, is one of the numerous pictures drawn to place the notion of evolution in the subconscious of masses.

Australopithecus Ramidus 

One of the fossils that the evolutionists have lastly included in the Australopithecus series, is Australopithecus ramidus or Ardipithecus ramidus. This is a very recent classification. It was found in Ethiopia by a team of researchers from California University headed by Tim D. White and J. Desmond Clark and announced to the public in September 1994. Nearly all hand finger bones and 7 wrist bones were found belonging to this living being which was supposed to be 4,4 million years old. His hands are long and curved. 

It is assumed that A. ramidus was 120 cm. tall. His teeth look similar to apes. His baby teeth are even more similar to apes than the other Australopithecus. Other fossils which were found along with Ramidus show that this creature lived in forests on top of trees. Evolutionists generally think that it is even more primitive than Lucy. 

Evolutionists who have learned much from their previous mistakes have not yet concluded their remarks by stating that this creature was the ancestor of man as they are afraid of facing another great loss. Generally, in articles relating Australopithecus ramidus; it is written that it has not yet been certified whether this creature is the ancestor of men or apes. Besides, it is stated that this fossil is the most primitive among the species asserted to be the ancestor of man. In reality, Australopithecus ramidus is nothing but an ape. 

Footprints in Laetoli Do Not Belong to Lucy but A Real Man 

The footprints found in 1978 by Mary Leakey in Ethiopia's Laetoli region over volcanic ash layers, made up an important part of the evolutionary propaganda. These footprints were displayed as the most solid proof of Lucy's bipedalism. It was announced that the footprints were 3.6 million years old like Lucy and that they were an evidence of its upright stride. 

As a matter of fact, the diagnosis was true for the most part: Footprints were indeed as old as Lucy and it was clear that they had been left by a living being walking upright. Yet, there was no evidence that these footprints belonged to an Australopithecus afarensis like Lucy. 

However, according to Johnson; the writer of the book named Lucy, these footprints should have been left by Australopithecus afarensis in any case. Do you wonder why?? Because otherwise it would be a catastrophe for the evolutionists to accept that modern man lived in such an early date. 

Finally, these footprints which could well be left by actual men, were attributed to Australopithecus afarensis as a result of the biased and prejudiced interpretations of the evolutionists. Instrinsically, it was very clear that these footprints belonged to actual human beings. Paleoanthropologist Timothy White who worked with Mary Leakey remarked: 

    "Make no mistake about it? They are like modern human footprints? The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn't stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecus in books."
After examining the footprints, Louis Robins 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
Briefly, it was impossible for these supposed 3,6 year old footprints to be of Lucy's. There was actually not a relation between these 3.6 million year old footprints and Lucy. The reason is that having curved hands and feet, and using its front feet while walking, Lucy could possibly not have left these prints. The only reason why it was thought that these footprints belonged to A. afarensis lied in the fact that this fossil was found in a volcanic layer which was supposed to be 3.6 million years old. As it was thought that humans could have not lived in such an early date, the prints were attributed to A. afarensis.  

Impartial examinations on  the footprints revealed their real owners: in reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10 year old modern human, and 27 footprints of a younger one. And they were, certainly modern people like us. 

 Kanapoi Elbow Bone Fossil 

One of the most flagrant cases of wand and waving to deflect evidence that could be most embarrasing to the idea of human evolution involves a fossil found at Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf (Turkana) in northern Kenya. This fossil, known as KP 271, is the lower end of a left upper arm bone (distal end of the humerus). It was found in 1965 by Bryan Patterson (Harvard University), and is in an excellent state of preservation. The most recent dating of the fossil gives it an age of 4.5 million years (m.y.a)."  This is the reason why this fossil is considered as the oldest hominid fossil ever found. It is even older than Lucy and other Australopithecus. 
 
Well, who does this fossil belong to? 

Meeting in 1967 to define KP 271, researchers like B.Patterson and W.W.Howells have argued that though these fossils looked similar to human beings, they actually belonged to Australopithecus.  

Howells, who used the most widespread method of comparison in his paleontological researches, compared KP 271 with an ape humerus, the humerus belonging to Australopithecus robustus which was the only similar fossil known until then and a human humerus. Howells and his assistant Patterson published the report of their study in Science magazine, on 7 April, 1967. 

    In these diagnostic measurements, Kanapoi Hominid 1 (the original name given to the fossil) is strikingly close to the means of the human sample.
The evolutionist scientists who found that the Kanapoi specimens looked dramatically like human specimens came up with an unexpected result. Yet, this situation did not alter their initial preconceptions. Although Howells and Patterson accepted the similarity of the bones to modern man?s bones, they still went on to assert that this fossil belonged to an Australopithecus as the fact that such a dated fossil belonged to a modern man was unacceptable for them. 

Further computer analysis of many more measurements revealed even more dramatically the similarity of KP 271 to modern humans. Henry McHenry (University of California, Davis) reported the results of his computer based researches he conducted in 1975 in one of his articles as follows; ?The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is  4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens?" 

In the following years, other researchers (such as David Pilbeam and Brigette Senuts) proved with many experiments and comparative studies that the KP 271 fossil was identical with the Homo sapiens bones. However, despite all these researches and manifest evidences, even the owners of these researches did not personally admit that this fossil could belong to Homo sapiens. All of the evolutionist researches made since 1965 concluded that this fossil looked very much similar to Homo sapiens bones, but still belonged to Australopithecus africanus species. 

Why, then is it still thought that this fossil belongs to A. africanus and not Homo sapiens?  The head of the first research done on the fossil, Howells, writing in 1981, fourteen years after the fossil was first ascribed to africanus, gives us the reason: 

    The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 billion, could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed prepostrenous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.
As it is clearly observed, this elbow bone named KP 271 belonged to an actual human being, but was ascribed to Australopithecus africanus who allegedly lived in that time slice just for the sake of placing it within the imaginary scheme of the evolution of man. The conviction that such an early dated human remain could not exist influenced the interpretation of this fossil to a great extent. This situation actually reflects the general rule of the evolutionary theory: According to this ideology, the expectations set up previously always outrun the actual facts. 
 

 The Miracle that the Theory of Evolution Can Not Explain: Bipedalism 

Man?s stride is a very special act unprecedented in none of the other living beings. The human beings who perform this act so easily are usually unaware of how complex this act actually is. A more detailed examination of this act will make it more clear that the incident rests upon extremely sensitive balances. 

 When the first step is taken, only the coming of the second step can stop man from falling down. When the person wants to take a step; the pelvis bone, the legs and other parts of the body engage in a series of muscle movements. Gravity forms the energy to withstand the acceleration of the body. When a foot is swing forward, the centre of gravity of the body is given forward. Meanwhile, the other foot touches the ground to provide balance. Pelvis bone plays a very important role in this movement as the rotation angle of the pelvis bone determines how far ahead the foot can go. Also, the muscles on the bone help to maintain the balance of the body when the foot is swung forward. 

All the while, the foot behind the body's centre of gravity provides the source of energy which moves the body forward. Ground is first pushed by the heel, then by the toe and  energy is produced by the walking person through the usage of the muscles. This is the "pushing" stage of walking. The foot at the back passes over to the starting point of the walking act, that is, the "swinging" stage, as soon as its interaction with the ground is over. As the foot is swung forward, it does not hit the ground because the knee, wrist and pelvis are slightly bent. The acceleration is relatively slowed down due to the slightly high pose of the foot while it is swung forward. Before the foot swung ahead steps on the ground, the knees flatten but the wrist remains to be bent. Hence, the heel touches on the ground first. With the stepping of the heel on the ground, the circle is completed and the other foot enters the swinging stage once more. 

Ebenhart and his friends who made studies during World War II to develop artificial legs and widened the scope of their researches later on, found out that the body was moving its center of gravity in space with minimum energy by means of a series of several deterministic factors. In man?s stride, many factors like gravity, acceleration of the body and balance interact with each other in harmony and provide that minimum energy is spent during the action. 

Human stride is realized in such a scrupulous balance and precise adjustment that no robot can be made that can perform this movement despite the time consuming trials on the subject. The robots which are manufactured adopting man's stride model lose their balance and fall down as soon as they lift up their foot to take a step due to the hopeless failure in the adjustment of the center of gravity. In an experiment designed to overcome this negative effect, a relatively big pendulum was placed at the back of the robot, and it was adjusted as to sway to the opposite direction of the foot that is lifted up to take a step. The limping walking style attained through this method could only be carried on at a constant speed. The movement ability of man who can change his speed as he likes, can not be imitated at all despite all efforts. 
 
The most interesting point is that, human beings never have to plan or think how they are going to walk while doing it. Actually, man accomplishes a difficult movement such as that, unconsciously, as if it had to happen anyway. Being quite prone to fail if left to the control of the person, the act of walking is quite a serious action not to be left to human's responsibility just like respiration, the functioning of the stomach and liver, and beating of the heart. 

This situation raises a very important question; How did the human being learn to walk in this way? How did he happen to acquire such an ability during the "evolutionary process"? 

It goes without saying that the evolutionists have no answer available to this question. 

Is Bipedalism An Evolutionary Advantage? 

The evolutionary theories put forward regarding the root causes of bipedalism, rest upon speculations and estimations rather than serious studies. The reason is that the evolutionists face a very big problem: When examined in terms of mechanics, it is seen that quadropedalism is more "superior" than bipedalim. A living being able to move on all fours can run faster and has more chance to survive. Bipedal stride is both harder and slower. Therefore, a thesis claiming that bipedalism evolved out of quadropedalism cannot be explained by natural selection which is based on the argument of survival of the fittest. 
 
If we think in terms of evolutionary criteria, we have to contend that bipedal stride of man is more "advanced" and "successful" than the quadropedal ape. Yet, it can not be said that contemporary apes are unsuccessful in terms of evolution, because they possess the characteristics most befitting to their environment and they have the ability to move in the most appropriate way for themselves. Niles Eldredge states with a question that the idea of "improvement of creatures through evolution" is logically untrue. Do plant and animal species really improve and develop into a more complex structure? If this is the case, then should we consider the simple and unchanged life forms, such as sponge, as evolutionary failures?? The evolutionary slogan "the evolutional is inevitable" should be replaced with "why apes are succesful". 
 
Theory of evolution is absolutely paradoxical about this subject: According to the theory, transition from ape to man (hence from ape's stride to man's stride) should be considered to be an "improvement". However, ape's stride is easier, faster and more efficient compared to man's stride? Human beings can neither proceed by jumping from tree to tree without stepping on the ground at all like chimpanzees, nor run 125 km/hr like a cheetah. On the contrary, man relatively moves in a much more slower fashion on the ground due to its bipedal stride. Again for the same reason, he is one of the most defenseless creatures in nature in terms of movement and protection. 

If we admit the evolutionary argument, we must assent to the idea that man?s first ancestor split off from the apes and started to walk on its two feet in an upright posture. Yet, since bipedalism is a disadvantage rather than an advantage, natural selection would eliminate this "ancestor of man". This is one of the biggest contradictions within evolution itself. As a result of this inconsistency, the French L?Express magazine published several articles stating that apes were superior to men in terms of evolution, so they could have evolved from them. 

"Explanations" of the Evolutionists on Bipedalism

Evolutionists are far from bringing a logical explanation to the emergence of bipedalism. Their interpretations on the subject do not depend on any concrete facts, but rather speculations produced out of their imagination. Sometimes, it can even be observed that these speculations are also covered up with an ideological and emotional disguise. Ilhan Selçuk declared that the first ape that is supposed to stand on its two feet was a "leftist", and set a very good example for the emotional nature of the evolutionists.  
    "Donald C. Johnson named the first human passing from horizontal position to the vertical as Australopithecus afarensis; later on, this man who stood on his feet for the first time was called as "Lucy". Which innate instinct and external effect caused man to stand on his feet while he was walking like an animal?... Why had he diverged from the majority while walking on all fours? Wasn't this man who stood up for the first time making a revolution? Maybe, this man standing up was the first "leftist"....
Other theories seemingly more scientific, actually consist of groundless speculations and interpretations on the root causes of bipedalism. Evolutionary arguments of both Darwin's era and modern times rest upon baseless speculations. 

Since the science of genetics and hereditary laws were not very well known in the 19th century,  explaining bipedalism seemed easy for Darwin and his followers. The most popular theory was that the apes living in the savannas of Africa stretched their necks in order to look over the high bushes and thus bipedalism originated. It did not take too long to understand that this Lamarckist theory was entirely incorrect. 

Contemporary evolutionists assert only a single thesis regarding the origins of bipedalism. However, when examined closer, it is possible to see that this theory presented by evolutionists by the reasoning of "best of the worst", is far from bringing an explanation to the origins of bipedalism just like the previous ones. According to the "theory of  transition from woods to the open field", the common ancestors of men and apes used to live together in the woods in the past. With the reduction of woodlands and for some other reason, some of them passed over to the open fields which gave way to bipedalism as a result of adaptation. Thus, the roads of the apes in the trees and bipedal men living in the fields separated, and both started to carry on with their evolution in their own direction. 

The famous Science magazine explains bipedalism exactly as follows: 

    Bipedality, the definitive characteristic of the earliest hominids, has been regarded as an adaptive response to a transition from forested to more-open habitats in East Africa sometime between 12 million and 5 million years ago. 
Although this "theory of transition from woods to the open field" receives a lot of support, it is extremely baseless. Primarily, this kind of an adaptation is impossible on molecular level. Even if it is assumed to have occured, there is no evidence of it in the fossil records. Furthermore, according to this theory, woodlands in East Africa should have started to diminish gradually. Yet the studies have proved just the opposite and disclosed that East Africa did not undergo such a change. Studies conducted by J.D.Kingston in Kenya in 1995 reveal concrete evidence to prove this theory wrong. Kingston writes: 
    Analyses of the stable carbon isotopic composition {d13 C} of paleosol carbonate and organic matter from the Tugen Hills succession in Kenya indicate that a heterogeneous environment with a mix of C3 and C4 plants has persisted for the last 15.5 million years. Open grasslands at no time dominated this porsion of the rift valley. The observed d13 C values offer no evidence for a shift more-closed C3 environments to C4 grassland habitats. If hominids evolved in East Africa during the Late Miocene, they did so in an ecologically diverse setting.
Briefly, transition from the woodlands to savanna environment in East Africa never realized. The plantation in this region remains the same for millions of years. 

Even if assessed logically, the theory on the roots of bipedalism is unacceptable. It is asserted that the shrinking of woods urged the apes to travel to the open fields and transfer to bipedal stride. How rational is this idea? In our day, do the shrinking woods lead some apes to descend from the trees and adapt to the ground environment? Is it possible that these apes started using tools after descending from the trees and becoming bipedal? Are these quadropedal apes going to be bipedal by means of a "magical stick"? 

 There is no doubt that the answer to these questions will be negative. In case of the declining of trees, the most natural behaviour of the apes would be migrating to another region. Or else, these apes would die out as a result of the destruction of their homelands. There is no basis for the theory claiming that the apes have come down from the trees somehow and adapted to the conditions on the ground. 
 

The evolutionists assert that Australopithecus are living beings able to walk on their two feet, but unable to adapt completely to such a way of movement. The computer based studies made by Robin Crompton (seen above) reveal that a living being should walk either on its two feet or four feet. A movement in between these two is impossible as it is very unavailing. Therefore, the assertion that Australopithecus walked on their two feet in an imperfect fashion is untrue. Australopithecus had the stride style exactly of the apes of our day.  
 
A recent evolutionist, Ulug Nutku confesses the insufficiency of the theory of the shrinking of woods as follows: 
    The shrinking of the woods can be considered as the initiatory factor for the the process of turning to be a human. This is a paleoanthological data. Although Napier's thesis is appropriate, it leaves out the question of why did the ape stay in the forest while an animal species went out of the forest and started to become a human? As the degree of speculation is decreased, it is becoming more difficult to reply this question, at least for the present. Hermann Klaatsch had given a very interesting answer at the beginning of the century when anthropology was still too young. According to Klaatsch, hominid apes attemped to be a human but theirs was an "unfortunate effort". They could not go up in the evolution ladder and drew back to the "protective darkness of the forests". But this time the question remains "why the apes could not succeed?"
There are many questions besides the question of "why the apes could not succeed?", and all of these still remain unanswered. 
 

Another Monkey Type: Homo Habilis 

Until 1960?s, there was an uncoverable and wide gap between Australopithecus and Homo erectus. These were very different from each other; Australopithecus were creatures with long arms, short legs, a small brain and organs suitable for climbing. Found towards the end of the 19th. century, Homo erectus was indistinguishable from today?s man in terms of its skeleton structure and his tallness, his teeth, mandibular and cranial structure were as modern as to make him one of the contemporary races. It had become necessary to fill this gap between these two different structures. 

Homo habilis was invented as a result of this need. 

In 1959, Mary Leakey found a skull fragmented into 100 pieces while making a research in Olduvai Vally, East Africa. The capacity of this cranium was not more than 500cc and had a primitive and protruding structure just like Australopithecus and contemporary monkeys. After Leakey completed her examination, she concluded that this skull belonged to a hominid which was killed by a hard object hit on the head. Setting out from this preconception, Mary Leakey judged that this creature had the skills to use stone tools, and even it was "civilised" enough to kill another member of his species with these tools. Due to that reason, the real owners of these fossils were called "killer apes". 

However, after a while Mary Leakey changed her mind and said that the capacity of this primitive creature's cranium was not big enough to manufacture tools. According to Leakey, only more intelligent beings could manufacture the stone tools found around the fossils. The owners of these stone tools could absolutely not be these primitive creatures. 
 
In 1964, Louis Leakey and his team found four more new fossil samples in the researches they made around the same region. Those fossils they found were again cranial and mandibular fragments tragically scattered around. Judging that their molar tooth resembled that of the human beings, Leakey measured the capacity of the cranium although it was shattered and found his cranial capacity to be 640 cc. He again argued that this skull volume was sufficient to assume that this creature was a hominid.  Louis Leakey believed that he finally had found the traces of the living creatures who manufactured the stone tools. 

According to Mary Leakey, both the 500cc skull she found priorly and the 640 cc skull belonged to the hominids, ancestors of modern men. However, the more advanced hominid in the evolution ladder had hunted the other and moreover, fed on it. The stone pieces they had found, must have had been the weapons which the more developed hominids used while hunting the others. Mary  Leakey named this species which she thought to be more developed "Homo habilis", meaning 'tool using man'. The others who are assumed to be killed and eaten by this species were included among Australopithecus who was placed at one stage lower in the evolution ladder. 

After the finding of this fossil, the researches of Leakey family gained a new velocity. Louis Leakey's 23 year old son Richard Leakey started to make a research in Kenya's Rudolph Lake region funded by the National Geographic Magazine. During these researches, many fossils were found which would be placed in the Australopithecus class later on.. In 1972, a fossil was unearthed in East Rudolph which triggered diverse debates in the history of paleoanthropology. This was a complete cranium with the lone lack of a mandible. The skull was composed of almost 300 pieces. These pieces were put together by Richard Leakey and his wife Meave Leakey and  then officially registered in the Kenya National Museum as KNM-ER 1470 (Kenya National Museum-East Rudolph 1470). This fossil was also included in the category of Homo habilis. 

 Misinterpretation of Homo Habilis 

Homo habilis has been the subject of many serious discussions. The reason is the scarcity and the imperfection of the fossils classified as Homo habilis. The skeleton and the skull of Homo habilis are very rarely unearthed side by side. This has led to many speculations regarding which species it belonged to. 

Homo habilis species has many common characteristics with the apes named Australopithecus. It has an simian skeleton structure with long arms and short legs just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes are fit for climbing. These qualities show that Homo habilis spent most of its time among trees. 

The cranial capacities of most of the fossils designated as Homo habilis do not exceed 650 cc. This volume is quite close to that of today?s gorillas. Besides, his jaw structure which is very similar to that of the contemporary apes proves that it is certainly an ape. 

As we have stated, Homo habilis bears immense similarities to Australopithecus. When assessed with his general cranial characteristics, it looks more like Australopithecus Africanus. Just like Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis neither has eyebrow projections and this feature caused it to be misinterpreted in the past and presented as a being similar to humans. 

Especially, the fossil number KNM-ER 1470 has been subject to many interpretations by his lacking of this enormous eyebrow ridges and his large cranial capacity higher than the average Homo habilis. Thus, many researchers did not hesitate to designate KNM-ER 1470 as Homo sapiens
 
On the contrary, it is not true that; KNM-ER 1470's wide and long structured forehead, hardly visible eyebrow ridges, its deprivation of the protruding over the skull which is called 'saggital crest' in gorillas, and 750 cc  cranial capacity, make it look like a human being. J.E. Cronin explains why this craium can not be similar to that of a human being. Homo habilis is just one of the archaic apes classified as Australopithecus by the evolutionists: 

    However its (KMN-ER 1470) 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
     
    ?KMN-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are not shared with later specimens of the genus Homo? 
On the same subject, C. Loring Brace from the University of Michigan states that the size of the jaw and the molar teeth indicates that ER1470 had exactly the same face and tooth structure as Australopithecus.  

Another well-known paleontologist Bernard Wood comments that there are no phenetic or cladistic evidences indicating this skull is similar to H.Erectus or H. Sapiens. In phenetic aspect, KNM-ER 1470 is comparible with the other Homo habilis fossils found in Olduvai. 
 
The reason why  KNM-ER 1470 was interpreted to be a human fossil for a while is due to the subjective and misleading interpretation of Richard Leakey who is the founder of the fossil. Leakey tried to imply that the fossil had some simian characteristics, but its cranium was too big for an ape. The main reason was to earmark this creature as a transitional link. 

Yet, the 750 cc skull of KNM-ER in no way dismisses it from being an ape species and renders it a hominid as there exist many apes having the same skull volume. When the ape skulls are at issue, the evolutionists usually refer to the chimpanzees who generally have lesser brain volumes and disregard the gorillas for the most part. The cranial capacity of chimpanzees surge between 300-500cc, at an average of 400 cc. Gorillas? average cranial capacity is 500 cc, but the bigger ones may have a cranial capacity of 700 cc and even 750 cc. 

As a result, the large cranial capacity of KNM-ER 1470 indicates that it can not be a hominid but a coarse ape. Estimated to be a male, 1470's big teeth and large cranial capacity shows that also his body is coarse in consort with these factors. 

The fact that 1470 had no eyebrow ridges does not prove tahat 1470 is a transitional link. In many primate species living today, there are no eyebrow ridges. For instance, contemporary orangutans have flat and non-protruding skulls. This structure is a common feature the orangutans share with KNM-ER 1470s and other Homo habilis. That is the reason why the assertion claiming that "the absence of eyebrow protrusions in the fossils is a hominid characteristic" is not true. 

The datas reveal that KNM-ER 1470 is structurally an ape similar to Australopithecus. The protruding structure of the face, extraordinarily big molar teeth and the cranial capacity too small to belong to a human being disclose this fact evidently. Besides, 1470?s teeth are exactly the same as Australopithecus

One wonders whether other Homo habilis fossils had more human-like features or not? 

No! The Homo habilis fossils unearthed lately yield very important data regarding the skeleton structure and stride style of this species. The most important of these fossils which has helped settle many controversial issues on Homo habilis was OH 62 which was unearthed in 1986 in Olduvai Valley by Tim White. The approximate age of OH 62 is  assumed to be 1.8 million years. It is composed of a damaged skull, an arm, and some feet bones as well as teeth. Almost all of the characteristics of this skull were in consort with the other Homo habilis fossils such as OH 24, ER 1813 and ER 1470. However, the height of this animal was shorter even according to ape standards, being only 105 cm.. Its skeleton indicated that this creature had long arms and short legs. These characteristics also exist in the apes living today who use them for climbing. Another interesting point is that its skeleton structure looks very much similar to A.aferensis, which was comprehended to be nothing but an ape. 

Other skull fossils unearthed have also proven that the other fossils included in Homo habilis species were absolutely not ?hominid?. Especially KNM-ER 1813 found at Koobi Fora in 1973 by Kamoya Kimeu sets a good example. ER 1813 of 510cc which had striking similarities with ER 1470 skull was categorized under Australopithecus until the beginning of 1980?s.  The situation changed when the similarity of this skull with ER 1470 caused speculative arguments. Today, KNM-ER 1813 is known to be an Homo habilis just like KNM-ER 1470. Yet, some sources still insist that this is an Australopithecus.  

All of these indicate that actually there is not a considerable difference between the fossils of Australopithecus class and the fossils of Homo habilis class. All of these consist of different ape species that cannot walk on two feet and have very small cranial capacities compared to man. What the evolutionists do is to try to generate a starting point, a first link for the legend of "evolution from apes to human" by making use of some characteristics of these fossils. 

Thus far, we have seen that Homo habilis was nothing else but an ape species. Until recently, the evolutionists asserted Homo habilis to be a being with an apelike skull, yet a human-like body and posture. According to them, Homo habilis was a bipedal able to walk upright. Evolutionists should well have had reasons for such an argument. 

Until 1986, body and skeleton bones of Homo habilis were not unearthed side by side. Yet, some of the fossils unearthed in the same layer with Homo habilis were assumed to belong to this species. Some KNM-ER 1481 and ER 1472 thigh bones which were indistinguishable from Homo sapiens were unearthed within the same layer but kilometers away from Homo habilis. These fossils were as well thought to belong to Homo habilis species. 

When OH 62 fossil was found in 1986, prevailing opinion regarding Homo habilis had changed. OH 62 had a typical Homo habilis sort of skull and a body very smilar to that of Australopithecus. His long arms and short legs showed it had a very convenient body for climbing. It was now understood what kind of a being Homo habilis was: Homo habilis was fully an apelike being. Thus, it was realized that Homo habilis was an actual ape just like other Australopithecus. 

Then, how could the thigh bones belonging to real humans unearthed within the same layer and dated equally with Homo habilis fossils be interpreted? If these thigh bones did not belong to Homo habilis, then to whom did they belong? 

Before long, these thigh bones were included in Homo erectus species. The modern structure of these bones actually compelled them to be categorised under Homo sapiens species; but these were designated as Homo erectus just because of their supposedly old ages. 

Right after these two species, come well-known human fossils, tall and walking totally upright. The sole difference between the species termed as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, or Homo sapiens archaic is nothing but various racial characteristics. 

Real Human Fossils 

We observed that Australopithecus and Homo Habilis were no different than real apes. However the postulated evidences about the legend of human evolution are not limited with these. These two ape species constitute the preliminary two stages of the so-called evolution process. 

After Homo habilis, Homo erectus comes next in the imaginary scheme of the evolution of man. Homo erectus is followed by respectively, Homo sapiens archaic, Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon. These fossils presented as intermediate forms succeeding Homo habilis by the evolutionists are nothing else but real humans as we?ll study in the following pages. There are only some racial differences between them. 

In other words, evolution scheme is nothing more than an array made by the successive arrangement of different ape species followed by the successive arrangement of different human races. Apes end with Homo habilis. Human races begin with Homo erectus.  

After Homo habilis, the cranial capacities of the human fossils in the imaginary human evolution scheme vary between 900-1600cc. Evolutionists seek to generate a "process of skull enlarging" by making use of this data. However these different capacities are within the range of the cranial capacities of today's man. Intrinsically, the cranial capacities of Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon are above contemporary man's average. 

After this introductory information, we can now start to study the real human fossils which are presented as intermediate forms and labeled as "primitive" by the evolutionists. In the following pages we?ll examine these fossils respectively from the youngest to the oldest. 

 Cro-Magnon Race 

The fossils of Cro-Magnon man were found in March 1868, in a rocky shelter in Les Eyzies, France. These individuals anatomically had no difference from the modern humans. 

It is estimated that the Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. It has a dome shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc. is above the average of contemporary man. 
 
Although Cro-Magnon race is known by the "Cro-Magnon I" cranium firstly unearthed, various skulls found in other regions of Europe can have some different characteristics. Some of them have thick projecting eyebrows and also have the bony protrusion behind their skulls which is characteristic of Neanderthal man and Homo erectus

Although Cro-Magnon man is accepted as a European race, the skull of the people living in Europe today are not similar to his skull. However the capacity and shape of this cranium looks much more similar to that of some races living in Africa and tropical regions today. Depending on this similarity, it can be stated that the owner of the skull Cro-Magnon I and his family members are an African origined archaic race. 

Cro-Magnon man disappeared rapidly. And this has a single reason: Paleoanthropological discoveries have demonstrated that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal races melted in each other and laid the basis for current races. Today it?s acknowledged that members of Cro-Magnon race still live in various regions of Africa and in Salute, and Dordonion regions of France. People carrying the same characteristics can also be found in Poland and in Hungary. 

It is an indisputable fact that Cro-Magnon men which are intended to be presented different from today?s man by the evolutionists were no different than us. 

Neanderthal Race 

One of the most striking part of the man?s evolution story is Neanderthals. Neanderthals who were real human beings were introduced for a very long time as "a primitive human race" by the evolutionists and were presented as an intermediate transitional form from ape to man. 
 
The story of the Neanderthal man begins in Neander valley in Germany. A teacher in a local school runs across a skull fragment, a thighbone and other small skeleton pieces in 1856. These pieces are studied by an anatomy professor named Schaafhausen in Bonn University and are allocated after many surveys and comparisons as a typical man without any anatomical abnormality. According to Schaafhausen who made the first study, the bones belonged to an old human race, possibly to a  barbarian tribe who resided there before the German race moved to the region. 

Afterwards the fossils were sent to the University of Berlin and re-examined here by Professor Rudolf Virchow. Virchow who were to be called as the father of pathology later on, made a diagnosis which still maintains its validity today: These bones belonged to a Homo sapiens who had suffered from severe arthritis in his childhood. And the actual reason of his death seemed to be several strokes he got on his skull. 

Nevertheless, the anatomy professor William King from Queen University in Ireland who studied the fossils after Virchow made a totally new interpretation which started the Neanderthal man legend. As a long-dated passionate advocator of the theory of evolution, King drew some conclusions from the structures of bones in accordance with evolutionist prudence. He pronounced that this fossil man was more "primitive" than the modern man and therefore could not be classified alongside with him. He also assigned a "scientific" name to it: "Homo neanderthalensis". According to King he was a member of Homo (human) species; but at the same time too primitive to be a human. 

Two years later, similar skeletons were found in Belgium. These skeletons which did not draw much attention at the beginning, afterwards attracted the attention of some  who were looking for the supposedly ape ancestors of man under the deep influence of Darwin's book, Origin of Species.  

In 1908, new Neanderthal skeletons were found in Le Moustier village in the region of  La Chapelle-Aux-Saints, France. These were studied by Professor Boule from the  Paleoanthropology Institute in Paris who had dedicated himself to support the evolutionist theory. Professor Boule was assigned to create a primitive Neanderthal man image in people?s minds. Professor received his task with enthusiasm and began his studies. He told his discoveries as follows: 

Neanderthals seem to be closer to apes than any other group of man and their intelligence is not wholly developed. The composition, position and the order of the cerebellum and spinal cord are the same as the apes. Besides, the feet have the same grasping attribute as in chimpanzees and gorillas. The anotomical structure of Neanderthals indicate that they walk in an awkward and clumsy way. 

At the same time, Professor Boule had taken an initial step by making the first Neanderthal reconstruction. According to this reconstruction which he made relying upon his preconceptions, Neanderthal man is a half man and half ape being. He can?t walk upright and stoops as apes. This baseless construction made by Boule in accordance with his subjective interpretation of the Neanderthal fossils he had, caused to originate a biased opinion about Neanderthals which still abides today. 

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Kebara 2 ("Moshe") found in Israel is the most integral Neanderthal fossil ever found. The skeleton of this individual who is 1.70 metres tall, cannot be discriminated from modern man. The tool remains found together with the fossil induces the thought that the community to which this individual belonged shared the same culture with the Homo sapiens communities that lived in the same region at those times. 
Despite all efforts of the evolutionists, this subjective approach to Neanderthals began to change starting from 1950s. Advanced technical means confirmed that Neanderthals were by no means primitive men in contrast to the prevailing view. 

In the light of these data, there remain the following questions to be replied; Was the Neanderthal man, who was alleged to live only 30,000 years ago, really primitive as the evolutionists claimed? Were Neanderthals primitive creatures who had no civilization and even unable to walk upright? 

These questions were replied by two researchers who examined La Chapelle-Aux-Saints fossils in 1957. The anatomists named Straus and Cave found out why the fossil man found in 1908 and depicted in a reconstruction by Boule stooped. As Professor Rudolf Virchow from Berlin University had pointed out once, this fossil also had suffered from chronic arthritis like the Neanderthal man who was firstly found. This bone disease was deforming the shape of the spinecord and led to stooping due to the dissolving of the bones. His mandible bone was also deformed. In short, the reason why Neanderthal fossil had a bent posture was the severe arthritis disease he suffered from and not his relevance to a primitive species. 

On the other hand, all the other finds yielded human characteristics. His big toe was not bent as Boule claimed. His thighbone was just same as that of man?s. The report prepared by Straus and Cave was ending with the following words: "If they had come back to life today, most probably they would not be discriminated from the other people in New York subway provided that they had bath and were shaved and wore modern suits." 

Thus it had become imperative to find a new scientific name for the Neanderthal man who was formerly considered as a distinct species from the man of our day and earmarked as Homo neanderthalensis. Henceforth, the Neanderthal man was illustrated as a sub-species of man and named as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.  

Today there is not much for the evolutionists to say about Neanderthal man. It has been apparently revealed that the reason why the fossil, which was illustrated in a construction by Boule stooped was the arthritis desease. Fully modern skulls and skeletons of the other Neanderthal fossils are not open to any kind of speculation. An estimated authority on this subject, Erik Trinkaus from New Mexico University, remarks as follows: 

    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. 
What?s more, the evidence indicates that the Neanderthals were people of incredible power and strength -far superior to all but the most avid body builders of today. Trinkaus continues as follows: 
    One of the most characteristic features of the Neanderthals is the exaggerated massiveness of their trunk and limb bones. All of the preserved bones suggest a strength seldom attained by modern humans. Furthermore, not only is this robustness present among the adult males, as one might expect, but it is also evident in the adult females, adolescents, and even children. 

    Valerius Geist from Calgary University states the following in relation to the subject: 

    Neanderthal was far more powerful than modern humans were. Whereas archaeologists can experimentally duplicate the wear pattern on tools such as were used by people from the Upper Palaeolithic (the people that followed Neanderthal...), the wear patterns on Neanderthal?s tools cannot be duplicated. We do not have the strength to do it. Neanderthal?s skeleton reflects a supremely powerful musculature. 
The evolutionists deliberately ignore the difference between the 1400 cc. skull volume of modern man and 1250-1750 cc. skull volume of Neanderthals. They well know that the announcement of this fact would pose a serious problem in terms of their thesis. Since the evolutionists interpreted the skull volumes they found as sole evidences of evolution, accepting the fact that Neanderthal man had a large skull volume than the modern man would imply a sheer regression in the evolutional process because this would simply mean that Neanderthals were more intelligent than the modern man. 
 
Nevertheless the skull of Neanderthal which is slightly bigger than that of the modern man, does not indicate that they are more "intelligent" or ahead in the evolution process since such an evolution process never existed. Neanderthals are just a particular mankind race differing from the current moderate mankind with some minor anatomical differences. It is in fact a known fact that various mankinds have different cranial capacities. It is evident that the capacity of the cranium has nothing to do with intelligence or being advanced. 

The fate of Neanderthals constitute another serious problem for the evolutionists. The question why these men disappeared completely from the fossil record 30,000 years ago extended various disputes and speculations among the evolutionists. 

There are three theories on this issue. The first is the theory of intermediate transition form advanced by the American anthropologist Ales Hridlicka. According to this imaginary theory, the evolution of mankind beginning with Homo erectus continued with Neanderthal man, and then originated the archaic form of Homo sapiens and lastly the modern Homo sapiens had evolved. The lineage of Neanderthal man, which was inferior to Homo sapiens, had died out during the period of natural selection. 

The second theory suggested that the Neanderthals which are accepted to be a European race were exterminated by Homo sapiens communities coming from Africa Thus the Neanderthals which were a blind alley for the evolution were totally wiped out from the face of history. This theory suggests that there is no trace of Neanderthals in modern man?s genes. 

The last theory seems to be the most credible one. According to this, the people who emigrated from Africa 100-150 years ago assimilated the Neanderthal race and some other Homo erectus communities living in Europe. Therefore Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens groups which had been thought to live in the same era mixed with each other and formed a single homogeneous group. 

The most important point here is that the real men designated as Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens archaic, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo erectus by the evolutionists were different races who lived in the same era and mixed with each other in time. The allegation that they evolved from each other is totally groundless. Neanderthals are not a different human species, but a different human race. 

The fossils certainly support this conclusion. According to the dates given by the evolutionists, Neanderthals had appeared 200 thousand years ago and disappeared ambiguously 30 thousand years ago. These fossils which have no anatomical difference from modern man were also found in Qafzeh cave in Israel. This proved both facts that people lived in Near East since ancient times and Neanderthals lived with other human races in close regions side by side for nearly 60,000 years. As understood from the fossil records, men earmarked as Homo erectus by the evolutionists also lived together with these races at that time. It is undoubtedly very reasonable for various mankind races to have close relations with each other and compose a homogeneous group by mixing in time. 

The Real Story of Homo Sapiens Archaic 

Homo sapiens archaic is one of the most recent classifications devised by the evolutionists. They say that this is an archaic (old) form of Homo sapiens sapiens which is the modern man. Some fossils that can not be considered as Homo erectus, Neanderthal or Homo sapiens sapiens according to some classifications based on criteria like cranial capacity and skull morphology was included in this group. This is why fossils designated as Homo sapiens archaic have very diverse brain volumes and characteristics and are of different ages. 

The first point that should be known about Homo sapiens archaic, is that there isn?t much difference between them and Homo sapiens sapiens. It is generally accepted that the difference between these two is based on their cranial capacities. The most typical feature of Homo sapiens archaic is the projecting eyebrow curvature which Homo sapiens sapiens do not have at all or have very little. Furthermore the skeleton structure below the skull is accepted to be same as the modern man. As far as the evolutionists state, the cranial capacity of Homo sapiens archaic is around 1100-1400cc and these man had lived between B.C. 700 thousand and 5000 A.D. 

Some evolutionists who reckon Neanderthals to be a blind alley of evolution accept that not the Neanderthals, but Homo erectus and, their descendants, Homo sapiens archaic are the ancestors of mankind. In this respect they argue that Homo sapiens archaic is an intermediary form between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens. 

The fossil which represents Homo sapiens archaic best, is the Rhodesian man fossil which is one of the firstly attributed fossils to this species. 

Rhodesian man fossil was found in 1921 in Zambia, which was then called North Rhodesia. According to the evolutionist palaeontologists who studied the fossil, the projecting eyebrow as the most remarkable feature of the skull rendered it a primitive species. However the 1280 cc. cranium capacity necessitated it to be included in the Homo sapiens category. His age which which was determined to be around 20-40 thousand years in 1921 supported this finding. 

However, the age of the Rhodesian man fossil was changed by the evolutionists about 30 years after the fossil was found. The first estimation of 40 thousand years was found far too young for the Rhodesian man who had a "primitive" structure. Thus, the evolutionists applied the formula, "change the test where you do not like the result". The age of Rhodesian man fossil was increased from 40 thousand to 200-400 thousand years as a result of radiometric tests. This age complied with the evolutionist schemes much better. 

However there are many reasons to think that these dating estimations are faulty and that the Rhodesian man has actually lived much more recently. 

The first reason comes out when taken a brief look at the date the fossil was found. In the British Nature Magazine which first introduced the Rhodesian man fossil to the world of science, a report was published in 1921 which said; "The skull is in a remarkably fresh state of preservation, the bone having merely lost its animal matter and not having been in the least mineralised." 

However according to the rules of geology, any organic remain which stays for about 200-400 thousand years under the ground would definitely be mineralised. Therefore, the fact that Rhodesian fossil was not exposed to mineralisation as stated in the original report indicated that it couldn?t be as old as the evolutionists said. The reason why it was said to be that old was only that its appearance was speculatively thought to be "primitive". There is actually no logical reason to stop thinking that Rhodesian man fossil belongs to a near past. 

Another interesting point is that the fossil was actually unearthed from a tunnel at the far end of a zinc-lead mine nearly 2 metres under the ground. Moreover, fossils of two or three people were found at the same sight alongside with the Rhodesian man. In comparison to the Rhodesian man, these skeletons possesed much more modern characteristics. This showed that the Rhodesian man who was presented as an older and more primitive species than Homo sapiens sapiens, actually lived at the same age with Homo sapiens sapiens and therefore was only a different race. 

This situtation also hinted that these people were possibly fossilised by being buried under the ground as a result of an accident that occurred while they worked in the mine. The idea that these archaic people had attained such a high civilisation as to dig a mine and work there conflicts with all the assumptions of the evolutionist theory. The fact that the supposedly "primitive species" called as Homo sapiens archaic was modern enough to do mine labour was an evidence refuting all the assertions on both the biological and the cultural evolution. 

The Real Story of Homo Erectus 

Homo erectus series is possibly the weakest link in the story of evolution of mankind. Because the species called Homo habilis preceding Homo erectus in the evolutionist scheme was definitely an ape species walking on all fours. Homo erectus means "the man walking upright (erect)" and its skeleton has no difference from that of the modern man. The only reason why the evolutionists interpreted this fossil to be a different species more primitive than the modern man, was its cranial capacity which was a little bit smaller than avarege contemporary man, and its certain cranial characteristics. However these two traits do not make Homo erectus a distinct species, but a particular race like Neanderthals.  

Now let?s examine this truth we briefly summarised above together: 

The story of Homo Erectus reaches up to the German biologist Ernest Haeckel who is one of the famous advocates of the theory of evolution and among the prominent racists of the 19th. century. Becoming a zealous advocate of the theory of evolution right after reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Haeckel came up with a new theory after a short while making an interesting contribution to the evolutionist theory. According to this theory, which was allocated as "embryological evolution" and summarised as "individualisation is the repetition of generation", during its development, an embryo passes through the stages which reflect the physical characteristics of its ancestors. According to this, for instance, during the development of a human embryo, it is possible to observe the characteristics of apes, namely his oldest ancestors. 
 
Soon it became clear that this theory which was the figment of a broad imagination was totally false. Moreover, the forgery Haeckel used to support his theory were disclosed in a short time. This "great" scientist had not restrained himself from extracting the one third of ape or human embryos from his drawings in order to prove his assertion. 

Soon it became clear that this theory which was the figment of a broad imagination was totally false. Moreover, the forgery Haeckel used to support his theory were disclosed in a short time. This "great" scientist had not restrained himself from extracting the one third of ape or human embryos from his drawings in order to prove his assertion. 

Haeckel?s explanation regarding his forgery is also quite interesting. While confessing the forgeries he had made, he defended  himself by stating that his other collegues  had also followed the same way. Haeckel says:  

    To cut short this unsavoury 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.
Here is Haeckel, the "forefather" of Homo erectus.  
 

Java Man 

After his studies on evolution models and fossils, Haeckel convinced himself that once upon a time a sort of ape-man should have lived in South Asia and Africa. Depending upon the scientists who once made researches in the area, he already knew that there were some fossils found in the region. Haeckel named the species he imagined in his mind as "Pithecanthropus alalus" (the man who cannot talk). Afterwards he faithfully began to inculcate this idea to the people around him and to the students in Jena University where he gave lectures. Furthermore, he began to draw pictures depicting how this imaginary creature lived with his wife and children in his natural environment. 
 
Haeckel's thesis made a great influence on one of his Dutch students, Eugene Dubois. Dubois strongly believed that Pithecantropus alalus had once existed and began his studies to follow the track of this being. Meanwhile Haeckel heard that some interesting fossils were found in Sumatra Island, Indonesia. Being inspired by this, he decided that the remains of Pithecanthropus alalus should be in Sumatra or Java Islands in Indonesia. Taking up this inspiration immediately, Dubois decided to go to the region to launch an investigation. First, he goes to the Dutch government to ask for financial support for his investigations. When his application was refused, he found a more interesting way and he enrolled to the Dutch Royal Army as a sergeant to serve in Indonesia. After he arrived to the region, he learned about the discovery of  a skull fossil near Java Island. After seizing this skull, Dubois also found other skulls around the same region. But these skulls were too human-like for an ape-man. 

Dubois continued his investigations exuberantly. In October 1891, he came across a big molar tooth in a cave near Solo River. Next month he found another. One month later, he found the upper part of the skull of "Java man", which later would be classified as Homo erectus. One year later, 12 metres away from where this skull fragment was found, he unearthed a fossilised human pelvis bone. Dubois reached to the conclusion that all his findings, namely the skull fragment, two molar teeth, and the pelvis bone belonged to the same person. And he announced his "great" discovery to the world of science: All these pieces were the remains of the "lost link" between man and ape which the evolutionists were searching for decades. This fossil which gave birth to the imaginary species of "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the man who can stand upright) was earmarked as "Java man" because it was found in the Java Island. 

The findings of Dubois came to the help of the theory of evolution right at a time when it was exposed to severe criticisms on account it lacked evidence. The fossils were exhibited in Berlin under Dubois' inspection and were introduced as a great evidence for evolution to the whole world. Many pictures and illustrations depicting the fossil man Pithecanthropus as primitive and ape-like were drawn and published in all related publications. 

This is the story of Java man, which is the most famous member of Homo erectus species. When we unravel this story recited by the evolutionists as the persistent venture of a researcher (Dubois) who was burning with the love of science, we come across with interesting points. The reason is that Dubois has acted so subjective as to the degree of forgery. 

What is more important is that Dubois had concealed the other fossils he found in the same region. In the layer where Dubois found Pithecanthropus, he had also found two more skulls belonging to the same era. The cranial capacities of these two fossils were even bigger than the cranial capacity of the modern man. However Dubois never displayed these two skulls, and only exposed the Pithecanthropus fossil, which he thought to be primitive. The American palaeontologist Ruth Moore describes the destiny of these two "inconvenient" skulls called Wajdak skulls as follows: 

    Dubois packed up the Wajdak skulls neatly, because he did not want anything to overshadow his discovery after he brought out Pithecanthropus. Both of the Wajdak skulls had large cranial capacities. Dubois found their capacity to be 1500 cc. which is over the moderate cranial capacity of modern European people.
As the news about Wajdak skulls became public, serious doubts raised about Java man. As the criticisms directed to Dubois increased, he started to be more discreet about the fossils he found. He did not show his findings to anyone, and had even locked some fossils in the basement below his dining room. However 40 years after the discovery of Pithecanthropus, he was compelled to confess that he had found modern man skulls in the same region. The exposure of the fact that a species which was thought to be primitive had lived in the same era with modern man only indicated that the fossil did not belong to a primitive species, but to a different race. 

Nonetheless, the evolutionists did not want to renounce the Java man. The fossil which was named Pithecanthropus by Dubois, was later re-named as Homo erectus and placed within today?s imaginary series of man?s evolution. 

Well, who exactly was Homo erectus? Was it the much sought "lost link" between the ape and the man, or was it merely a particular mankind? 

Most recent information regarding Homo erectus were found in 1960 by Louis Leakey in Olduvai Valley in Tanzania. This firstly found skull was named OH9. In the following years new fossils were unearthed. In 1970, there were many Homo erectus fossils available mostly found by Louis Leakey's son, Richard Leakey in the region called Koobi Fora. Furthermore, many Homo erectus fossils were found in various regions of China along with miscellaneous tool remains. Interestingly enough, in the excavations in China, complex tool remains and remains related with fire use were unearthed. These remains were attributed to Homo erectus with the assumption that Homo sapiens should not have lived there for 500 thousand - 1 million years more. 

Pekin Man and Other Homo Erectus Fossils 

The Chinese researchers came across some human fossils in Choukoutien 35 kms far away from the capital of China, Pekin in 1921. These fossils were composed of 30 skull fragments, 11 jaw bones and 147 teeth. However there were very few body bones belonging to these fossils, but there was only a fragmented arm bone available. 

The idea to call these fossils Sinanthropus pekinensis was firstly suggested in 1929 by Dr. Davidson Black who was an anatomy professor in United Medical School in Pekining. In the very same year, some new remains were found in the excavations made in the Choukoutien region. These new skeletons which were soon to be named as Sinanthropus by Davidson Black, were unearthed from a cave with a ceiling which seemed to have collapsed. All the skulls were damaged and their mandible bones were lacking. Their cranial capacities varied between 900 - 1200 cc. 

When Dr. Davidson Black died in 1934, the German paleoanthropologist Franz Weidenreich overtook his mission. From then on Weidenreich carried out the studies of introducing these skulls to the world of science. Weidenreich made plaster casts for each skull. He also made the reconstructions of these fragmented skulls. 

Unfortunately, during the disorder caused by World War II between 1941-1945, all fossils were lost except two molar teeth. These lost bones were never found again. All that have reached to our day are only a few undestroyed teeth and the above mentioned plaster casts made by Weidenreich. 

In 1952, two researchers named Boule and Valois made a detailed research on one of these plaster casts. According to their findings, there was very minor difference between Pithecanthropus, who was allocated as Java man, and the Sinanthropus fossil in their hands. It was so that the differences between the skulls of different Neanderthal individuals were more than the differences between Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus. These two groups of skulls discovered in different geographies were very much alike. After these results, these two groups were brought together under a single species and Java man fossil was called Pithecanthropus erectus while Peking man fossil was called Pithecanthropus pekinensis. After a while, the evolutionists defined them as a single species and gave them a new name: Homo erectus, that is, "the man who stands upright". 
 
Meanwhile the most important Homo erectus fossil was found in 1965 in Vertesszlöllös, Hungary. These remains which were suggested to be the skeleton of a man of about 30 years old were dated as 400-500 thousand years. This Homo erectus fossil which was extraordinarily alike Homo sapiens was classified as a new species named as Homo paleohungaricus (Erectus seu sapiens). Another group of fossils found in the same region after a while were modern enough to be included into both Homo erectus and Homo sapiens classes. The other remains found in Sidi "Abd-Ar-Rahman" and "Rabat" in North Africa also had the same obscurities. Most of these fossils sharing the same characteristics with both Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were afterwards included into archaic Homo sapiens class. However this was an evidence showing that there was no difference between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. 

In June 1984, Richard Leakey and his team found a fossil in Turkana, Kenya, which was considered as a great accomplishment in regards to palaeontology. This was the fossilised skeleton of a 12-year-old boy. With the lone exception of some characteristics of his skull, this skeleton belonged to a fully modern human. He had an even less evident eyebrow ridge than some modern human races and his upper forehead was narrower than usual. Briefly, he was not much different from us. 

When he first found this fossil, even Richard Leakey stated that this boy could well  merge in a crowd of people if he lived today. The fact that this skeleton was found in a layer assumed to be 1.6 million years old hindered this fact to be admitted. Because the fact that a Homo sapiens had lived at such an early date was entirely in contrast with the evolution schemes. Thus the child was included in the Homo erectus class. Leakey described the discrepancies this fossil created with the evolutionary theories in his article, "Modern and Tall" as follows: 

    ?At five feet four inches tall, the boy from Turkana was suprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a longheld idea that humans have grown larger over the milennia.
This human fossil called Turkana Child was 1.60 m high and was the oldest human fossil ever found. According to Walker, he was expected to be 1.83 m. tall when he reached adolescence. Even the evolutionist paleoantropologists who examined the fossil, Richard Leakey and A.Walker expressed their surprise saying that it bears a dramatic similarity to ancient man and its skeleton very much resembles that of a modern child. 

The facts yielded by these results were quite important: Evidently there was no important difference between Homo sapiens sapiens defined as a modern man and the so-called species of Homo erectus. The difference between these two Homo species was at most same as the difference between various races currently living on earth -and that could remain isolated. Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo erectus were merely different races which were discriminated from each other in order to fill in the evolution scheme. 

This was true also for Homo sapiens archaic or Neanderthals. As a matter of fact, it could well be thought that Turkana Child fossil was a member of the Neanderthal race. Walker tells that when they placed the jaw bone within the skull, Leakey and he laughed a lot since it was so similar to Neanderthal

  Homo Erectus; A Modern Man  

With reference to above information, some basic facts about the most important member of imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus, can be highlighted. 

It should be firstly emphasised that the postcranium of Homo erectus is exactly the same as the modern man. They are all tall, and have an upright posture. Moreover, probably Homo erectus is the first living thing all over the world that have an upright posture. (Homo habilis which are placed right before Homo erectus in the evolution scheme are quadropedal apes who cannot walk upright - as mentioned in the previous pages.) 

In some sources it is even stated that the morphological structure of Homo erectus enabled them to use the energy spent while walking in a more productive way and thus they could even walk more efficiently than the modern man. It is evident that such excellent stride is not attained through an evolutional process, but through a "special design", which is creation. 
 
The only difference between Homo erectus and today's modern man is the skull. This difference is especially seen in the projecting part of the eyebrows. The eyebrow curvature in Homo erectus is a little bit more projecting in comparison to ours. Yet this does not make a big difference neither in the genetic structure nor the physical appearance. The mentioned skull characteristics of these people called Homo erectus are racial and also normal. Richard Leakey who is among the leading defenders of the theory of evolution cannot restrain himself from making the following statement on Homo erectus in his book "The Making of Human Kind" although it is in contradiction with the evolutionist thought: 

    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. 
 
An article published in Time magazine, in November 1996 had a big impact. In this article, the 27 thousand year old Homo erectus fossils which were firstly announced in the Science magazine were taken up. These articles initiated an important argument among the evolutionists. It was to the astonishment of the evolutionists how it could be possible for "a primitive species" which was supposed to arise 2 million years ago to come as close as 27 thousand years before today.  Thus the scientific realities refuted the idea of man's evolution once more. On the left is seen a representative reconstruction of Homo erectus man. Above is the skull and the place it was found..
Former president of Istanbul University Social Anthropology Department, Professor Doctor Nephan Saran has stated the following about the absurdity of the robustness of the eyebrows which is determined as the most important criteria defining Homo erectus
    .....We have already referred to the robustness on the eye cavity which is mentioned before and used in the "race" classification. This robustness is found recpectively in Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Neanderthal and Rhodesia man. In male gorilla, it displays an obvious and strong development. In the extant human groups, it is seen in the Australians. It can be thought that this trait is a sign of primitiveness.
Yet here again the true incidents do not support this idea. This robustness is not seen in the young gorilla and adolescent orangutan. But it exists in the adolescent gorilla. As for the human fossils, it exists in some, and absent in some others. In Asian Mongoloids, it has already completely disappeared. It is present in some of the Caucasians and Negroes. All these reveal that the anthropologists are faced with a very confusing situation. 

Despite his evolutionist attitude, Richard Leakey expresses the truth on the issue as follows: 

    Most of the anatomysts accepted the big eyebrow projections which resembled to old apes as "primitive" characteristics. Considering this, the eyebrow projection of Neanderthal and Peking men  were assumed to indicate the "primitive" characteristic of these men. However today it is perceived that the big eyebrow projection does not witness "primitiveness", but this is a specification. Having met these kinds of characteristics in some societies does not show indicate an ancient evolutional stage, but a branch which specialized in a different respect than the other Homo sapiens types. 
Briefly, today it has been understood that the robustness of the eyebrow, skull structure and jaw structure which are assumed to be primitive characteristics, can not prove one race to be superior over another or one race to be more "primitive" than the other in terms of evolution. As stated in the last sentence of the above quotation, these characteristics are various disparities of different races. Just like the yellow race has slanting eyes or Eskimos have robust bodies, these kind of structural traits are completely racial. 

Unsurprisingly, each new found fossil disclaims the thesis that man underwent an evolution in time and further proves that the people designated as Homo erectus or Neanderthal are not evolutionary steps, but only individuals of various human races. 

This situation is made more clear when these fossils are put in a chronological order. In contrast with the evolutionist claims, these people, interpreted as different species by the evolutionists have not lived in subsequent historical eras, but in the same time span and sometimes altogether. Thus far, 222 Homo erectus fossils have been unearthed in Australia, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Depending upon these fossils which are totally accepted by the evolutionists and registered in various natural history museums under certain names, Marvin L. Lubenow declared that 106 out of these 222 fossils were more recent than 300 thousand years. And 62 out of these 106 fossils were more recent than 13 thousand years. Thus it is understood that men called Homo erectus are only a different race of Homo sapiens

Looking at what we have inquired from the beginning of this chapter, there seems to be only one conclusion to be drawn. The evolutionary affirming that man came into existence through evolving from primates does not depend on any concrete evidence and in contrary is invalidated by all available proofs. The scheme on the evolution of man which is sought to be kept alive, is actually based on extremely subjective interpretations, distortions and even forgeries of the evolutionists. 

In short, evolution of man is only a deception just like all the other thesis of the theory of evolution? 
 

Previous  Contents  Next
The Bibliography