Making Up the Story of Human Evolution

[N.O.R.F]

By Harun Yahya

 

The story of "human evolution" has been based on the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build up imaginary interpretations. Although only 120 ape species live on earth today, yet throughout history more than 6,000 ape species had existed before becoming extinct. These species have constituted a rich resource for a story that had never taken place.

Evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the smallest to the biggest, while scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them. According to this scenario, humans and today's apes are said to have common ancestory.

 

However, the fossil record indicates to us that throughout history, humans have been humans and apes have been apes. Some of the fossils the evolutionists claim to be those of human ancestory, actually belong to human races that lived until as recently as 10,000 years ago before they disappeared. Moreover, many human communities still living today have the same physical appearance and characteristics as these extinct human races, which further proves that humans have never gone through an evolutionary process at any period in history.

 

The Imaginary Family Tree of Humans

 

The Darwinist claim that during the alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 4 to 5 million years ago, there existed some "transitional forms" between today's humans and their ape-like ancestors. Four basic categories have come to be used to describe these stages:

 

1. Australopithecines

 

2. Homo habilis

 

3. Homo erectus

 

4. Homo sapiens

 

Evolutionists call the genus to which the first of these ape-like ancestors of humans belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Evolutionists then classify the other three stages of human evolution as belonging to the genus Homo, or "Man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very much different from today's humans. The humans of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo.

 

Australopithecus: An Ape Species

 

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet that they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm; 51 in.) and just like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female.

 

Many other characteristics — such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs — constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape.

 

Evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, yet unlike apes, they walked upright like humans. Many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines, however, have proved the invalidity of that argument.

 

Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the US, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard respectively, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, evolutionist Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary ape genus and were definitely not bipedal (Zuckerman).

 

Similarly, Charles E. Oxnard, an evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of today's orangutans (Zuckerman). So in short, australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.

 

Homo habilis: The Ape Presented as Human

 

The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, had caused great difficulty for evolutionist paleoanthropologists. The reason was that, according to an earlier presentation by evolutionists, Homo erectus descended directly from Australopithecus.

 

As the genus name Homo (meaning "Man") implies, Homo erectus is a human species and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is also twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from today's humans, was out of the question even according to evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links" or "transitional forms" were needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from that necessity.

 

The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a family of "fossil hunters" living in Kenya. According to the Leakeys, this new species had a relatively large cranial capacity, and the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools. Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of humans.

 

New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s, however, were to completely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly found fossils, stated that Homo habilis (which means "skillful man," that is, man capable of using tools) should be rather classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape."

 

Apparently, Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the australopithecine apes: It had long arms, short legs, and an ape-like skeletal structure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were also suitable for climbing, and its jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Its 600 cc average cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that it was an ape. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.

 

Studying a specimen labeled as Homo habilis named Stw 53, anatomy specialists Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, and Frans Zonneveld found that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." This meant that this Homo habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species. This lead them to the conclusion that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."

 

Homo erectus and Thereafter: Human Beings

 

According to the scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, then the so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However, all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a Pygmy and a European.

 

Let us first examine Homo erectus, which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo habilis specimens.

 

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average of today's human, as well as its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (Pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).

 

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking Man and Java Man discovered in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking Man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java Man is "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found meters away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This made evolutionists give higher importance to those Homo erectus fossils found in Africa.

 

The most famous African Homo erectus specimens is that of "Narikotome Homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil is that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence.

 

But the upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of a contemporary human. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human" (Rensberger). Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey stated that the differences between Homo erectus and contemporary humans are no more than racial variance (Leakey).

 

Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut Islands, and he noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (today's human).

 

 

 

By outlining the links in the chain Australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens as such, the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus had existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times (Swisher and Kluger). Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (today's man) also clearly coexisted. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

 

Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races or else to species of ape.

 

 

 

For detailed information about these fossils, please see The Atlas of Creation, by Harun Yahya. To purchase the works of Harun Yahya, please visit

www.bookglobal.net.

 

Sources:

 

Leakey, Richard. The Making of Mankind. London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62.

 

Rensberger, Boyce. The Washington Post. 19 Nov. 1984.

 

Swisher III, C. C. et al. "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity With Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia." Science, Vol. 274, Number 5294, Issue of 13 Dec. 1996, pp. 1870-1874. Also see: Kluger, Jeffrey. "Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo erectus May Have Survived Long Enough to Coexist With Modern Humans." Time. 23 Dec. 1996.

 

Zuckerman, Solly. Beyond The Ivory Tower. New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Harun Yahya is the author, who writes under the pen name Harun Yahya, was born in Ankara in 1956. He studied arts at Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, the author has published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun Yahya is well known as an author who has written very important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloody ideologies. Some of the books of the author have been translated into English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Albanian, Arabic, Polish, Russian, Bosnian, Indonesian, Turkish, Tatar, Urdu and Malay and published in the countries concerned. Harun Yahya's books appeal to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, regardless of their age, race and nationality, as they center around one goal: to open the readers' mind by presenting the sign's of God's eternal existence to them.

Please visit : www.harunyahya.com

e-mail : info@harunyahya.com

 

 

But why make up such nonesense? Why are humans not still evolving?

[me]

Harun Yahya and Islamic Creationism

 

"Darwin Day" could probably only be thought of in the United States. After all, among industrialized nations, the US is the only one with a strong creationist movement, causing endless battles over school curricula. Other countries have their anti-evolutionary moments, but the American market for creationism is the largest. Ken Ham might present his "Answers in Genesis" (www.answersingenesis.org) with an Australian accent, but he found it best to move to the US.

 

Of course, Americans are not the only people who have a strong streak of old-time religion in their culture, and who perceive the strain modern science puts on the old verities. In this time of religious revival around the globe, the Islamic world is perhaps the most striking in its attachment to a scripturally literalist faith. However, until recently, "creation-science" was not very visible in Muslim lands. Ironically, this was mainly because Darwinian evolution rarely appeared in education or in intellectual life.

 

In 1873, in the days of the Ottoman Empire, Mithat Efendi mentioned Darwin's theory in one of his writings. The religious scholars put out a fatwa declaring him an apostate. In the twentieth century, the scholars lost their traditional power in many countries, and Western ideas increased in influence. Still, Muslim thinkers took it for granted that either evolution did not occur, or that any development in life happened under direct divine guidance. The Quran, after all, declares special creation, particularly of humans. The blind naturalistic process modern science has come to accept obviously had to be wrong; the Darwinian view of nature was but another indication of Western degeneration in religion and morals. However, Muslim apologists rarely felt a need to elaborate their dismissal of Darwin.

 

In the US, creationism appeals to a religiously conservative population who have become upwardly mobile, joining professional classes where technical knowledge is highly valued. They are concerned both to affirm their traditional, morality-infused view of nature and at the same time, respect science and technology. Creation-science promises to accomplish this without compromise. Interestingly, a similar situation has developed in the Islamic world. Particularly in Turkey, long the most modernized among Muslim nations, the last few decades has been a time of both religious revival, and of the growing power of a religiously conservative segment of society who operates in a global capitalist economy. And so, perhaps unsurprisingly, creationism has recently erupted in Turkey, and influenced other Muslim countries. Muslim immigrant communities in the West -- also caught between old-time religion and the modern world -- have also been increasingly exposed to creationism, often imported from Turkey.

 

One name dominates Turkish creationism: Harun Yahya. Supposedly this is the pen name of Adnan Oktar, the leader of a religious order. But Yahya is credited with so many books, articles, videos, and web pages (www.hyahya.org) that it is hard to believe this is a one-man industry. Plus the intellectual prowess of leaders of religious orders are commonly exaggerated -- tales of incredible intellectual productivity serve as a kind of modern miracle story, bolstering the stature of charismatic teachers. So Yahya is not really a person but the flag under which the most prominent Turkish creationist activities set sail.

 

What is immediately striking about Yahya's productions is how modern and media-conscious they are. Before the Yahya era, expressions of creationist sentiment in Turkey were generally confined to religious intellectual circles; these writings rarely went beyond throwaway references to the obvious intelligent design in biology, and denunciations of evolution generally occupied a few passages in books concentrating on larger religious themes. Some religious orders striving to create an Islamic version of modernity attacked evolution in their "science magazines," but these had limited effect -- a well-heeled and media-savvy creationism, with great production values, continually harping on the evils of evolution, was unheard of. In contrast, Yahya's material is in full color, printed on glossy paper, copiously illustrated, popular in orientation (it uses few Arabic terms, unlike much religious literature), and available in all sorts of modern media. These publications are ubiquitous, found not just in bookstores but even in supermarket chains owned by the new breed of "Islamic corporations."

 

It is clear that Yahya's project commands an immense amount of resources. It is doubtful that Yahya's lavishly produced materials support themselves -- they are priced to be affordable, and even obtaining them for free takes no great effort. The August 2002 issue of Mercek, his "monthly scientific and cultural magazine" sold for about $1.80, including two VCD's (video CD-ROM's), and the only ad for non-Yahya merchandise it contained was for a series of materials to learn English (important for the upwardly mobile). Yahya's web sites make most of his books available online, in a wide variety of languages -- at no charge. Turkish creationism has gone international, and Yahya's books are as easily found and as prominently displayed in Islamic bookstores in London as in Istanbul. And the organization behind all of this, and the sources of its finances, are virtually unknown. The Turkish state, notoriously unable to bring the underground economy under control, or even collect taxes from most businesses, is also unable to enforce regulations on religious foundations.

 

Another striking aspect of Yahya's material is how much of it is taken, with minimal changes, from Western creationist literature such as that associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Since the Quran is not as specific as the Genesis story, Islamic creationists usually allow an old earth, so Yahya discards flood-geology and is noncommittal about the age of the earth. But the rest is there, flavored with quotations from some "Intelligent Design" figures, and all set in a matrix of traditional Islamic apologetics hammering on how obvious it is that there is a designing intelligence behind all the wonders of nature. ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.

 

Yahya also promotes other beliefs far from mainstream science and scholarship, besides creationism. These tend to be his versions of conspiratorial ideas popular in the Muslim world, such as Masonic plots and holocaust denial. But even when indulging these politically-colored fantasies, Yahya has a way of getting back to denouncing evolution. Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism (Istanbul: Kultur, 2002) begins with a "To The Reader" section, where Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:

 

The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone. Some of our readers may find the chance to read only one of our books. Therefore, we think it appropriate to spare a chapter for a summary of this subject.

The same preface and the same anti-evolutionary chapter, "The Misconception of Evolution" (with different illustrations) appear in Islam Denounces Terrorism (3rd edition, Bristol: Amal Press, 2002). In this book, Yahya treats the reader not only to standard apologetics about Islam being a religion of peace, but in his chapter "The Real Roots of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism" exposes the true culprit behind events like September 11: evolution. Apparently, "the way to stop acts of terrorism is to put an end to Darwinist-materialist education, to educate young people in accord with a curricula [sic] based on true scientific findings and to instil in them the fear of God and the desire to act wisely and scrupulously." (p. 147)

 

What then, of opposition to Yahya, particularly in Turkey, where his name is known best? Unfortunately, this is weak. Turkey is a "developing country," a polite term to describe a place which is economically a colony administered by the IMF, politically unstable, and poor. The Turkish scientific community is weak, unable to find even a unified voice in fighting the creationists, let alone muster comparable resources. Occasionally, political secularists complain about Yahya, but secularists can do little else lately but wring hands and hope against hope that the European Community will let Turkey become a member, and maybe then everything will be all right. At the time of writing, Turkey was poised for elections at the end of 2002, and an Islamist party was expected to come out with the largest share of the vote.

 

Still, friends of Darwin can find a few reasons to be optimistic. After all, creationism is a reaction, and the very fact that a Harun Yahya exists is evidence that evolutionary ideas have penetrated far enough into Turkish culture that religious conservatives feel a need to take action. And Yahya becoming known throughout the Islamic world might mean that evolution is making inroads there as well.

 

On the other hand, there are even more reasons to be pessimistic. Yahya seems successful in grabbing public attention, with little opposition. As the degree of conservatism of Turkish governments fluctuates, the degree of creationism in high school biology texts also goes up and down, but evolution, if present, will inevitably be relegated to the last chapter the class will not have time to cover. And the notion that the complexities of life and the universe can only result from divine design runs very deep in Islamic apologetics. Muslims will, by and large, to continue to see Darwinian evolution as obviously false, and maybe even evil, for a long time to come. With Harun Yahya, we have a phenomenon which we in the Western world we should carefully watch and learn from as we celebrate "Darwin Day." For here we have a creationism which threatens to be successful in its ambitions to drive evolution out of the culture.

 

Harun Yahya

[Johnny B]

^Both You and Harun share the charechter flaw of beeing irreceptive to genetical mutations.

 

Incase you're on it under the delusion of Islamic monotheism's creationistic stance , you better look at what another Nomad thought of this charlatan.

 

 

You got to do with Salifi and Co

[N.O.R.F]

^^Can any 'enlightened' scientist challenge brother Haruun's observations?

 

Anyone?

[N.O.R.F]

The real reason behind 'Darwinism'

 

As Harun Yahya explains, the theory of evolution does not limit itself to the field of biology; rather, it has socio-political, economic, religious, scientific, and ethical repercussions and effects [in] all spheres of life. The author explains that

the objective of evolutionism is to destroy the belief in God, the Creator, in accordance with the agenda of materialist atheists

. Evolution Deceit is particularly important as it exposes the hidden agenda of the evolutionists. It becomes evident that as a thesis, as a philosophy, but most of all as an ideology, the theory of evolution is intrinsically evil.

 

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/global_impact.php

[N.O.R.F]

Or maybe a video would help.

[Johnny B]

Sceince is not concerned with what is 'evil' or 'good' , those are prefernce taggs used for expressing how a person or a thing is related to a person or a thing. And to judge your enthusiasm you're way too challenged evolution-wise that is, but to humour you , lets see what observations are you talking about, " Why are humans not still evolving"?

[N.O.R.F]

You seem to enjoy writing in riddles of late (or do I just not understand you?) Maybe its your fall back strategy, I don’t know. But being a staunch pro-science so and so, where is the proof that there actually was any evolution? Where are the non-charlatan scientists to ‘show us the money’? Even the Christians are on board with ‘Intelligent design’. A losing battle for the ‘oh it just happened so believe it’ numpties wouldn’t you say?

[Johnny B]

^Let me be nice and just ask you, what kind of evolution are you claiming to not have taken place? skip it, don't answer , i just dont have enough energy to explain the obvious.

 

I've another idea , let us turn this thread to a place where we proof that Evolution of any kind hasent taken place by using the following if and then assertions.

let me start ,

 

If evolution is right then why men have two breasts(nibbles)?

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Sceince is not concerned with what is 'evil' or 'good' , those are prefernce taggs used for expressing how a person or a thing is related to a person or a thing. And to judge your enthusiasm you're way too challenged evolution-wise that is, but to humour you , lets see what observations are you talking about, " Why are humans not still evolving"?

Every absurdity has a champion who will defend it.

^^^^

nomen est omen, nomen est omen, nomen est omen

[Johnny B]

Khayr , sulum inconcinnus has vero quispiam quisnam vallo is , tamen, inconcinnus ego vallo est solus inconcinnus ut est substructio in animadverto , quod meus nomen est Johnny, mos vos agnosco is? ego nuto !

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

^Let me be nice and just ask you, what kind of evolution are you claiming to not have taken place? skip it, don't answer , i just dont have enough energy to explain the obvious.

 

I've another idea , let us turn this thread to a place where we proof that Evolution of any kind hasent taken place by using the following if and then assertions.

let me start ,

 

If evolution is right then why men have two breasts(nibbles)?

:confused:

 

So are you defending Darwinism or not? Do you believe you was an Ape in a previous millenia?

[Johnny B]

If i'm defending Darwinism ? what is Darwinism? please define it.

If i believe that i was Ape in previous milleina? frankly speaking i do ape alot but i was only born in 19.., so no i don't believe that, but that my ancestors were more like Ape-like than i'm is something totally different.

 

Norf , this is more than the usual you pulling our legs, you just can't luckily be so challenged that you wanna take a stance that claims no evolution has taken or is taking place. if that is the case i'd just tell you to give us a break, but if you're onto something and really understand what Darwin's theory of evolution(natural sellection) is about.

(As we're not short in nomads who never read Darwins origins of species but memorize and repeat what their Mullahs say), bring it on .

 

That evolution is a fact is for you to do some catching up and understand it, but that you don't understand the exact mechanism of evolution is something you share with many of us.

 

One common misconception that is leveled at all scientific theories, specefically at the Evolution theory is that people tend to believe that a theory is something that is not true or something that conveys an imperfect fact, however,in scientific context, a theory is the structure(s) of idea(s) that explain and interpret a fact(s).

[N.O.R.F]

1) I posted HY's opinion on Darwin's Human Evolution Theory (a theory believed by Athiests - who deny there was a creator)

2) You post something about HY's supposed suffi tendencies (unproven and off topic)

3) I ask you to bring forth anything to counter HY's piece (you dont)

4) You come back with 'you dont understand the evolution theory' (you are correct to an extent)

 

Now, what say you on HY's above piece and can you come with something from the 'enlightened' perpective? Save all the running in circles for another time.

 

(As we're not short in nomads who never read Darwins origins of species but memorize and repeat what their Mullahs say), bring it on .

A pittence of a cheap shot (glad you havnt changed )

[me]

JB iyo Norf isu daaya! This might become interesting.

 

(As we're not short in nomads who never read Darwins origins of species but memorize and repeat what their Mullahs say), bring it on .

Have you read that racist piece of work JB?