Darwinists have had to keep apologizing for the last 150 years; “sorry, that was a hoax,” they said, “our mistake, it was a pig tooth, not a human one,” they said, “sorry about that, the moths were deliberately stuck onto the trees,” “the skull had been planed down,” “feathers had been stuck onto the dinosaur by hand,” “it appears that this fossil is still alive and not an intermediate form at all,” and “the primordial atmosphere was not like that at all,” they said. “Embryos are not like this at all, the illustrations are fakes,” they said. “We said it was the ancestor of man, but it appears it was just an ordinary ape,” they said. They have kept on apologizing and retracting their claims. They have hurriedly withdrawn fossils from museums. Declaring something to be an intermediate fossil in one issue of a journal, they have issued an apology in the subsequent edition. And this has carried on right down to the present day.
The reason is this: DARWINISM IS SIMPLY A DEVIANT IDEOLOGY, WITH NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT IT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. It is for that reason that Darwinists constantly manufacture false evidence. But their frauds are only short-lived.
When their frauds emerge into the light of day, Darwinists then have to stand up before the public and apologize. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths, Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the Coelacanth, Lucy, Archaeoraptor, the equine evolution series, the skulls which they have tried to be depict as evidence for the myth of human evolution, Archaeopteryx and most recently Ida have all gone down as some of the worst frauds there have ever been. Ida, the subject of great show all over the world, was the most recent instance of this. This fossil, described falsely as “the ancestor of man” and as “the greatest evidence for evolution” on one of the world’s best known TV channels, the subject of documentary films and press conferences, eventually turned out to be nothing more than an ordinary lemur fossil. Following all the clamor they had created, Darwinists then had to apologize yet again. (You can find more detailed information on the subject here.)
ARDI HAS ALSO RECENTLY BEEN A PART OF ALL THIS FUROR. Darwinists took an ordinary monkey fossil and totally rebuilt the completely fragmented pelvic bone, which its millimetrically small pieces continues to shatter , in such a way as to permit it “to walk upright.” One of the main reasons why the fossil in question was chosen as the greatest potential candidate for the imaginary human evolution scenario was the fact that its pelvic bone was reconstructed by Darwinist scientists “in the way they wished.” Darwinists did what needed to be done in the name of Darwinism and Ardi was shamelessly portrayed to the whole world as an “upright-walking ape.” They had no hesitation in depicting it as the greatest evidence for supposed human evolution. But like all the others, this furor was also short-lived, and the Darwinist fraud soon came out into the light of day and directly, from statements made by Darwinist scientists.
Now it’s time FOR THEM TO APOLOGIZE FOR ARDI.
The Darwinist William Jungers, head of the anatomical sciences department of the Stony Brook University, Long Island, medical center made this comment about the claims that Ardi represents an “ancestor of man:”
I think some of the things they said might have been for effect.[1]
The Darwinist Tim White from the University of California and his team, who examined Ardi and suggested that it might be the missing link in the supposed evolution of man, had to make this admission:
"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus,"[2]
The fact that the totally shattered pelvic bone and its surroundings were reconstructed completely in the light of Darwinist scientists’ interpretations was also explicitly set out by Darwinist scientists. Jungers said this on the subject:
Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very similar to an australopithecine [an imaginary human-like group including Lucy]". "It's very difficult not to make them look like something you have in your mind if there's any chance of play"... Ardi, requires a lot of guesswork.[3]
After examining the fossil remains Jungers said, “there is no way that they could belong to ‘an animal that wasn’t often walking on its hind legs’ unless the data ‘were deliberately ignored or if we had made them up’.”[4] With that statement it was revealed that Tim White and his team had perpetrated yet another deception in the name of Darwinism.
It is not only the pelvic bone findings that refute the claims made about Ardi. One article published in Science magazine stated that the anatomy of Ardi’s hind feet showed that it was a climbing animal. An article titled “How Humanlike Was Ardi?” by Katherine Harmon of Scientific American magazine said that not a single part of the animal’s feet showed that it stood upright. The feet, and the big toes in particular, exhibit features still found in present-day chimpanzees that assist in climbing. Jungers summarizes the situation by saying:
[Ardi] really doesn’t show any adaptations for bipedalism at all.[5]
Lacking a single piece of evidence with which to prove their claims, Darwinists are now resorting to the following deception in order to be able to portray this life form as the supposed ancestor of man: “The females were small, because they looked after the young while the males went hunting.” This wretched claim is in fact important evidence of the hopeless position in which Darwinists find themselves. Since they have no evidence in their possession, they have no hesitation over resorting to demagoguery. It is shameful for a scientist to make such a claim and, on the basis of it, to declare that a perfect bonobo monkey is in fact the ancestor of man. But no matter how embarrassing it may be, Darwinists are obliged to repeat these pitiful claims for the sake of deviant Darwinist ideology.
There is little need to take such a claim seriously and respond to it. But it will be useful, from the point of view of showing the wretched state into which those making it have fallen, to make this clear: human beings are not the only living things to have a family life that includes division of labor. Many living things live as families, and both males and females within the family have their own separate tasks. In many it is the males that hunt, while the females take care of the young. Therefore, the fact that the female of a particular life form does not hunt, but looks after the young, DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MAKE IT HUMAN. This ludicrous claim clearly reveals the deception of which Darwinist logic rests.
Conclusion:
The Darwinist dictatorship is now in a hopeless position. They are at a loss how to resurrect the deceased Darwin and his ideas. They are trying to retrieve the position in a state of despair and panic. They are therefore prepared to risk ridicule and espousing nonsensical claims to that end. That is how Darwinism has collapsed and been defeated in the 21st century. Ardi has again made that collapse and rout crystal clear. Darwinists have had to retract all their claims concerning Ardi, and have now realized that they can no longer deceive people as they used to in the past. False fossils that used to be displayed in museums for 40 years are now being exposed for what they really are, and frauds now have a life span of only a few days, or even hours. Darwinists’ efforts to bring evolution back to life with false fossils are all in vain. Darwinists themselves now see and admit this.
[1] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[2] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[3] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[4] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[5] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November2009,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[2] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[3] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[4] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[5] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November2009,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
No comments:
Post a Comment