Fossils and Darwinism

In 1912, Charles Dawson, a well-known doctor and also an amateur paleontologist, claimed to have found a jaw bone and skull fragment in a depression near Piltdown, England.  Although the jaw bone resembled an ape jaw, the teeth and skull resembled those of human beings. The fossils were given the name “Piltdown Man,” dated at 500,000 years and were put on display in the British Museum as the most significant evidence of so-called human evolution. A great many scientific papers, analyses and illustrations were produced over the next 40 years. Some 500 academics from different universities wrote doctoral theses about Piltdown Man. ¹

On a visit to the British Museum in 1935, the well-known American paleoanthropologist H. F. Osborn said, " . . . Nature is full of paradoxes . . . a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man." ". . Nature is full of paradoxes . . . a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man." ²  
But Piltdown Man was A HUGE FRAUD, a deliberately manufactured HOAX.

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum Paleontology Department sought permission to use the newly developed “fluoride test” on a number of ancient fossils. The Piltdown Man fossil was duly tested using the technique. The test revealed that there was no fluoride in the Piltdown Man jaw bone. This meant that the jaw bone had been underground FOR NO MORE THAN A FEW YEARS.  The skull contained a small amount of fluoride and must have been a few thousand years old.

Subsequent chronological research based on the fluoride technique revealed that the skull was no more than a few thousand years in age. It was also realized that the teeth in the jaw bone HAD BEEN ARTIFICIALLY WORN DOWN and that the primitive tools found beside the fossils were REPLICAS carved using steel equipment. ³

An Oxford professor of physical anthropology Joseph Weiner’s detailed analyses definitively confirmed this fraud in 1953. The skull was human, around 500 years old, while the jaw bone belonged to a newly dead orang utan!  The teeth had been added on and set out afterwards to give the impression of being human, and the insertion points had been planed down. All the fragments had then been stained with potassium dichromate in order to give an aged appearance. This staining disappeared when the bones were placed in acid. Le Gros Clark, from the team that exposed the hoax, was unable to conceal his amazement and said:

"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?" ⁴ 

“The Piltdown fossils, whose discovery was first announced in 1912, fooled many of the greatest minds in paleoanthropology until 1953, when the remains were revealed as planted, altered – a forgery.” ⁷

He Who has created all things in the best possible way. He commenced the creation of man from clay; then produced his seed from an extract of base fluid; then formed him and breathed His Spirit into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show! (Surat as-Sajda, 7-9)

Darwin suggested that the appendix was a remnant from the cecum, a larger organ in humans and other primates, that it had no function and that only a few species possessed one. Even today, Darwin’s followers insist on maintaining that deception. In addition to the significant discovery outlined above, William Parker has also revealed that Darwin was wrong in the following regard: 

“First, several living species, including certain lemurs, several rodents and a type of flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum which is used in digestion. Second, Parker says the appendix is actually quite widespread in nature. "For example, when species are divided into groups called 'families', we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix.”

"Darwin simply didn't have access to the information we have," explains Parker. "If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."

In order for a single protein to form, five separate conditions that demolish the very foundations of Darwinists’ theories need to be met simultaneously:

1st condition:
There are more than 200 amino acids in nature. Only 20 specific amino acids need to be selected in order for proteins to form. If any other amino acid apart from these 20 enters the equation, no protein will result.

2nd condition:
Following the selection of these special 20 amino acids, it is essential they be set out in a specific sequence.  Even if all the conditions are completely fulfilled, just a single amino acid being in the wrong sequence will prevent protein forming.

… the amino acids that comprise the proteins found in living things, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed. No known natural process can isolate either the left- or the right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.¹

Darwinists employed the same technique they used with Australopithecus for the Neanderthals, an extinct human race.

Neanderthal Man entered the scientific literature with the discovery in 1856 of fossils in the Neander Valley near the German city of Düsseldorf. The curvatures in its skull and bones led it being regarded by evolutionists as a supposed primitive human species.

In 1908 an almost complete skeleton described as belonging to Neanderthal Man was found in the French region of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. The bones re re-assembled by the famous paleontologist and geologist of the time Marcellin Boule.

The Neanderthal Man that emerged from this re-assembly had a stooped posture and a protruding skull. Its legs were also locked at the joints, meaning it lacked a fully upright posture.

Thanks to this appearance, the impression formed in people’s minds that Neanderthal Man was a primitive being. Neanderthals were also depicted as ape-men in fictitious illustrations.

This false impression of the Neanderthals lasted for 100 years. But analysis of the La Chapelle skeleton in the 1950s determined that the Neanderthal to whom it belonged had a kind of joint infection. Healthy individuals were in fact able to walk just like normal human beings.

In 1985 the same skeleton was examined by the anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus. That examination confirmed that Neanderthals walked upright and revealed another fact that had hitherto remained hidden:  Marcellin Boule had deliberately portrayed Neanderthal as being stooped. ¹ The joint disorder identified in the 1950s was no obstacle to the individual walking upright. It appeared that the Darwinist Boule was unwilling to admit that the Neanderthal walked like a normal human being. 

E. Trinkaus and W. W. Howells made the following statement in Scientific American magazine:

Today most scientists agree that Neanderthal Man stood fully upright and that in the absence of disease, its features are no different than modern humans. 2

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. ³

A few years ago, they [Neandertals] were thought to be ancestral to anatomically modern humans, but now we know that modern humans appeared at least 100,000 years ago, much before the disappearance of the Neandertals. Moreover, in caves in the Middle East, fossils of modern humans have been found dated 120,000-100,000 years ago, as well as Neandertals dated at 60,000 and 70,000 years ago, followed again by modern humans dated at 40,000 years ago. It is unclear whether the two forms repeatedly replaced one another by migration from other regions, or whether they coexisted in some areas. ⁵

Certain publications in Turkey have recently been reporting statements directed at the Atlas of Creation at a conference given by Richard Dawkins a year ago as if they were something new.

Dawkins Has Suffered a Huge Defeat, and That Is the Reason for His Refusal to Meet Mr. Adnan Oktar:
In making imputations regarding Adnan Oktar, Dawkins forgets his own intellectual father, Darwin. It is Darwin whose ideas he defends to the hilt, the ignoramus who was unaware of the existence even of the sciences of biology, zoology, microbiology, genetics, paleontology, geology, molecular biology and paleoanthropology, who was expelled from all the schools he entered and had no other aim than to spend times with drunken mariners. Dawkins acts as supporter of a theory launched by Darwin, who was totally ignorant of science, in the outdated atmosphere of the 19th century, a theory that today even children find laughable.

In addition to all this, Dawkins proposes the claim that Mr. Oktar does not have any knowledge of zoology as an excuse for not meeting with him. Yet at the same time he never lets go of the Atlas of Creation, Mr. Oktar’s work that has rocked the entire world. At every available opportunity he personally arranges conferences on the very subject, participates in conferences held by others, makes a special issue out of the book, and collects people around him as he comments upon it. He does all in his power to criticize, at least in his own eyes, the author’s works, yet he absolutely refuses a face-to-face meeting with him. Dawkins’s huge reluctance to enter into a debate with Adnan Oktar, despite all the latter’s calls, and his electing instead to respond, again in his own eyes, to the authors‘ ideas and his analyses on the subject all go to show how disturbing he finds the author’s activities. The only reason why Dawkins refuses a face-to-face encounter with Mr. Oktar IS THAT HE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY ROUTED AND HAS NO ANSWER TO GIVE.

Adnan Oktar’s statement on the subject during one interview runs as follows:

Adnan Oktar: Dawkins says he refuses to debate with me because I have received no biological training. My friend, what can I say? What about your forefather Darwin? Did he receive any training, any training in zoology or biology? He was kicked out of all his schools. But he was certainly an expert when it came to drinking wine. He could tell you what vintage a wine was and where it came from and all that, but nothing about the matter at hand. Do you still believe in his nonsense? You do, even though you know how ignorant he was. Do you believe in the unscientific claims he made in the light of the backward science and deficient scientific understanding of the time? Yes, you do. That is one point. The second is, do you not debate with high school and middle school students wherever you go? Yes, you do. Have they received any training in biology? No, they have not. Do you debate with clergymen? Yes, you do. Have they had any training? No. That means you debate with people you calculate cannot beat you. With people you believe cannot defeat you. You would be devastated in a debate with me—in minutes, and even in seconds. Let me challenge you again. But your forefather [Darwin] lies dead, while you weep at his graveside. (From Adnan Oktar’s interview with Tempo TV and Kral Karadeniz TV broadcast on 28 September, 2009.) 

Adnan Oktar: I used a plastic model of an animal in one place in theAtlas of Creation. This person then made a huge fuss, as if he had discovered something. Daily Vatan then took it up, wondering why we had used a plastic model instead of an original animal. Yet he has no qualms about using drawings and pictures that are totally irrelevant, but we do not hold them against you. Since the plastic model is identical to a picture of the living life form in question of course I can use whatever I wish. 
Presenter: That is a bit of very fine detail. There is the question of declining a debate but closely following your every move. He must have read the whole thing in order to pick it up. 

Adnan Oktar: He will say, how could he debate with the author of this book? Because he will be unable to respond even to 10 pages of it. Not even 5 pages. I am now in the course of preparing the 4th and 5th volumes of the work, and I have used plastic models of frogs, for instance. They look different and nice, and there is also a bit of a jest in them. I have led that person to take the bait. This is the only subject he criticizes. I deliberately put the hook. There was a hook there, clearly visible. I put the insect on the hook and he went for it. He is now talking about it everywhere, showing people the insect on the hook. 

It is an honor for us that this person should so avoid us. In the ring a wrestler comes out and waits for his opponent. If that opponent fails to show, then he is declared as the winner to great applause. This is something far greater than a technical knockout, as he was too afraid even to turn up. But I would have liked to inflict a knockout as well. Let him show up, but he cannot because I would crush him in a single moment. (From Adnan Oktar’s interview with Tempo TV and Kral Karadeniz TV on 28 September, 2009.)

Adnan Oktar: They approached with humor and tried to tell something. They ask if Adnan Oktar would get angry with it. He wrote something similar to it. When was it found, in 1996 or 1990?

Adnan Oktar: Where was it found?

The living bonobos display exactly the same characteristics with the recently found fossil "Ardi".

False Ardi Drawing.