by John Hamer
Could Dawkins, knowingly or un-knowingly be a puppet of the Elite, a so-called ‘shill’ or ‘useful idiot’ who is discreetly encouraged to spread his dis-information to as wide an audience as possible? If so, he certainly would not be the first nor the last, one suspects.
Richard Milton was initially an ardent believer in Darwinian doctrine until he began to investigate the myths and legends of evolutionary theory in depth. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he realised that there were many anomalous elements in the theory. He therefore decided to put every main classic ‘proof’ of Darwinism to the test. His results left him stunned at first. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of even rudimentary investigative journalism. Eventually, he published a book titled “The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism”.
“I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand – it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by the prominent Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, as ‘loony’, ‘stupid’ and ‘in need of psychiatric help’ in response to purely scientific reporting.” Richard Milton
Do we detect shades of the Soviet Union in the 20th century, when so-called dissident scientists there began speaking out against the diktats and manufactured reality of Stalin’s regime?
If all the preceding assertions are true, this all begs the question, ‘what is the point of the deception’? If someone goes to all that trouble to make sure we believe something that is not and cannot be proven, there must be a reason for it and a hidden agenda behind it. Indeed, this simple test can be applied to anything but in this case the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that it is done in order to deceive and therefore impose and maintain control by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the real truth of our origins and purpose as a species.
Fossil records constitute the primary source for the evolutionists in searching for evidence for the theory of evolution. The fossil records certainly contain the remains of past human beings but when these are examined objectively, it may be seen that the records themselves are in no way in favour of evolutionary theory, but rather against it, contrary to the assertions of the evolutionists. However, since these fossils are incorrectly portrayed by the evolutionists and presented for public opinion with the intent of fulfilling pre-conceived ideas; many people are fooled into incorrectly believing that the fossil records actually verify the theory of evolution.
The evolutionists disingenuously use the fact that findings of fossil records are open to many different interpretations, to their own advantage and as ‘proof’ of their own assertions. The discovered fossils are usually not sufficient to make a firm analysis, but are generally comprised of incomplete and fragmented bone pieces. This is why it is so simple for them to distort the available data and use them fraudulently to portray the desired objectives.
Belief in the theory of evolution has come to be seen as almost a life-style choice, a mode of thinking, even an ideology rather than just simply a theory like any other by its evangelical defenders who do not deem it necessary to take steps to prevent the distorting of data or even the committing of more serious, deliberate forgeries. Indeed, extremist advocates of evolutionary ideology do not hesitate to undertake any kind of distortion necessary in order to interpret the fossil records in favour of evolutionary theory. It is a classical scientific mistake to build any kind of theoretical framework from the basis of an incorrect initial assumption and yet I believe that this fundamental ‘mistake’ is made time after time by the proponents of evolutionary theory.
"Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data… We are unaware of many of our assumptions. 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 sombre than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us." David Pilbeam, anthropologist, Harvard University.
It is true that ideological expectations can and do influence the interpretation of any given data set and the fact that fossil records are open to many different interpretations raises doubts on the reliability of the whole science of paleo-anthropology which is mostly under the control of the evolutionists. Certain prejudices and expectations will undoubtedly have an impact on the veracity of data extrapolation.
“…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extra-sensory 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.” Sir Solly Zuckerman, palaeontologist at Birmingham University, England.
Since fossil records are usually unorganised and incomplete, the estimations based on them are inevitably totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based on the fossil remains are often treated in a speculative way in consort with the evolutionary theory. Since most people are more easily influenced by visual rather than written data, the aim of evolutionists is to entice them to believe that these reconstructed creatures have really existed in the past.
For this reason alone, 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, draw semi-human-like imaginary creatures and then present these to the public sensationally as a link in the evolution of man. These drawings and reconstructions have indeed played an important role in the visualisation 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 defining details are soft tissues often muscles or tendons that do not leave an impression in the rocks as they decay too rapidly. 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.
“To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility, model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of a man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.” Ernst A. Hooten, Harvard University.
Indeed, evolutionists invent such ridiculous stories that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus, is a famous example of such a forgery.
A group of evolutionists who could not find any substantial evidence in the fossil records to support their at best, tenuous beliefs, actually decided to create their own evidence themselves. Some of these studies were even included in text books under titles such as ‘evolution conspiracies’ and this is probably a good clue to the fact that the theory of evolution is an ideology or a life philosophy that has to be contrived to be kept alive by considerable effort.
A well-known doctor and amateur palaeontologist, Charles Dawson announced in 1912 that he had found a jaw bone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. Despite the fact that the jaw bone was ape-like, the teeth and the skull were similar to a human's. These specimens were designated by science as ‘Piltdown Man’, determined to be dated to half a million years ago and depicted as absolute ‘proof’ of the evolution of man for more than 40 years. Many scientific articles were written about the artefacts, many interpretations and drawings were made and it was presented as important evidence and taught as undeniable proof of the macro-evolution of
mankind.
The discovery of ‘Piltdown-man’ engendered massive enthusiasm in paleo-anthropological circles and gave birth to many new debates which automatically assumed that evolution was absolute fact. For example, the famous English anthropologist, G. E. Smith pondered... “Did the brain or body of man evolve first?”
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the palaeontology department of the British Museum in London devised the ‘fluorine test’ to determine the date of fossils. When the test was performed on the Piltdown-man fossil, the subsequent result was shocking. It was proved conclusively that the jaw-bone of Piltdown-man contained no fluorine and this therefore indicated that the bone was underground no more than a relatively few short years and was therefore obviously a fraud. In addition, the skull itself contained a small amount of fluorine, enough to determine that it was a few thousand years old, only. It was also proved by the tests that the jaw-bone and the skull came from two entirely separate creatures and time-periods and must therefore be a deliberate hoax.
“The latest chronological researches made with the fluorine method revealed that the [Piltdown] skull was only a few thousand years old. It was manifest that the teeth in the jaw bone belonging to an orang-utan were worn out artificially and the primitive tools found next to the fossils were simple imitations sharpened by steel devices.” Kenneth Oakley, palaeontologist, the British Museum, London.
Alongside 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 and in the tests it was understood that these elephant fossils were indeed very ancient. However, the jaw bone and the skull were much more recent than the elephant fossils. What then was the significance of these facts? It was surmised that the Piltdown ivory fossil had probably been found in Africa and then deliberately placed in the Piltdown site to give the impression that the false skull was as old as the elephant fossil in order to mislead. As the researchers studied the other animal fossils found in the same region in more depth, they found that these were also placed there with the deliberate intention of deception and the Piltdown bone tool was eventually discovered to be an elephant fossil shaped with a steel knife.
However, the hoax could still be regarded as a raging success by the evolutionists in as much as it had propagandised the population for almost half a century into a definitive belief of evolutionary myth and the Elite know very well that once any beliefs become deeply entrenched in the human psyche then even subsequent absolute proof to the contrary will not necessarily remove or diminish them.
Piltdown man skull
This fake fossil that occupied the evolutionist circles for a many years, demonstrates the lengths to which those who desire to prove the theory of evolution at all costs are prepared to go. Why would this be? Why would anyone fake scientific evidence? I suggest that it is done (in this case at least) to provide hard evidence of the proof of evolutionary theory in the absence of any other real or tangible facts that would verify it. This in itself speaks volumes to my mind.
After the detailed analysis completed by Kenneth Oakley, William le Gros Clark and J. S. Weiner, this forgery was eventually made public in 1953. The skull was discovered to be human and was a mere 500 years old and the jaw-bone was from a recently deceased ape. The teeth had been specially arranged and added separately to the jaw and the tooth sockets were set in such a way as to resemble those of a human. All these individual elements were then deceptively stained with potassium-dichromate to give them the false appearance of great age. These stains disappeared when the skull was dipped in acid.
There was also much evidence of artificial abrasion that in hindsight was so obvious that it begged the question; how had it escaped the notice of experienced palaeontologists for forty years? Sir Solly Zuckerman’s view was…
"As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished by 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.”
However, in my view, the story of the Piltdown-man fraud provides a pretty good answer to that question.
So, the ‘theory’ of evolution is based on the hypothesis that contemporary man today has evolved from his primate ancestors, diversifying from them between 4 and 10 million years ago. Although no definitive consensus has yet been reached by the evolutionary researchers, the generally accepted list of ancestors of humans reads as follows:
Australopithecus or ‘southern ape’
Homo habilis or ‘tool using man’
Homo erectus or ‘upright man’
Archaic Homo Sapiens or ‘old modern man’
Homo sapiens or ‘modern man’
According to the evolutionists the first ape ancestors of man, Australopithecus were creatures which had some human-like but possessed mostly ape-like characteristics. Some branches of the Australopithecus have allegedly become extinct and the others developed into the Homo (human) strain. Evolutionists also insist that Homo erectus and its subsequent incarnations were almost identical with contemporary man.
Today there are over 200 species of apes still extant. However, it is claimed that there were in total, more than 6500 species of primates that lived in ancient times but are now extinct. According to the estimates of scientists, only 3% of these primates are known. The species Australopithecus named by evolutionists are actually extinct apes which share some common structural characteristics with today's apes.
The primary criteria used by evolutionists in categorising and evaluating human fossils are; bipedalism (upright walking), cranial capacity (the volume of the brain-pan) and cranial shape. Various classifications are evaluated according to those criteria.
Yet, some of these criteria, especially the cranial capacity are extremely unreliable. For example, the generally accepted cranial capacity figure for a contemporary ape is a maximum of 750 cubic centimetres (cc). The cranial capacity of humans is said to range between 900-2200cc, but among the Australian Aborigine natives, there are quite a number of individuals who have a capacity of around 850cc and furthermore cranial capacity is obviously subject to huge variations, depending on age, sex, race and other criteria. Cranial capacity can therefore never be a reliable means of measurement.
The crania of ape fossils and the crania of today's apes are very similar to each other, being narrow and long. However, human crania are more voluminous with wide foreheads, the skull is flat with no protrusions, eyes are wide apart and the shape of the eyebrow ridges above the eyes change according to racial traits. In addition, the mandibles of humans are very much different from that of apes, bearing a distinctly parabolic shape.
To continue the argument, the arms of apes are longer in relation to the body and their legs are shorter, both toes and fingers of apes have grasping abilities and they are all quadrupeds – all true of both primitive and modern species. Indeed their entire skeleton is designed for a quadrupedal-type body structure. They stand on two feet only rarely, for example when reaching upwards to grasp tree branches or pick fruit, but generally spend most of their time on all-fours.
Bipedalism is a characteristic exclusive to humans (in primates) and this quality is the factor that most distinguishes human beings from other mammals. A human hip, pelvis, back-bone and spinal cord are designed only for a biped and could not function correctly in a quadrupedal frame. In short therefore, when analysing the ‘proof’ of evolution, one could realistically say that the most important and binding criterion should be bipedalism. Bipedalism is the critical factor that distinguishes humans from apes and therefore the focal point of the argument should be the question of whether our so-called ‘ancestors’ walked upright or not.
One of the most enduring chapters of the apocryphal human evolution story is Neanderthal man. Neanderthals, whom even the evolutionists deem to be ‘real’ human beings were regarded for some co
nsiderable time as ‘a primitive human race’ by the evolutionists and are considered by them as an intermediate, transitional form from ape to man, possibly in an attempt to solve the ‘missing-link’ conundrum which haunts evolutionary theory to this day and which has never been adequately explained.
The story of Neanderthal man began in the Neander valley in what is now modern Germany, where a local schoolteacher discovered a skull fragment, a thighbone and other small pieces of a skeleton in 1856. These pieces were subsequently studied by an anatomy professor named Schaafhausen at Bonn University and were eventually considered, after many surveys and comparisons, to be a typical human male with no anatomical abnormalities. 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 Germanic races moved into the region.
Some years later however, the fossils were sent to the University of Berlin and re-examined there by Professor Rudolf Virchow. Virchow who later in life came to be regarded as the ‘father of pathology’, made a diagnosis which still holds validity today; that these bones belonged to a Homo sapiens (modern human) who had suffered from severe arthritis in his childhood and who had died from what appeared to be several blows to the skull.
Nevertheless, William King an anatomy professor from Queens University in Ireland who studied the fossils after Virchow, produced a totally new interpretation of the facts, which was in effect responsible for the Neanderthal man ‘legend’. As a long-time passionate advocator of the theory of evolution, King drew his conclusions from the structure of the bones in accordance with evolutionist prudence. He pronounced that this fossil was more ‘primitive’ than modern man and therefore could not be classified as such. He also assigned to the fossil, it’s now ubiquitous scientific name, Homo Neanderthalensis. According to King, it was a member of the Homo (human) species; but at the same time too primitive to be a human.