The theory of evolution maintains that human beings and modern-day apes share a common ancestor. These primitive creatures gradually evolved, with one branch coming to form present-day apes, and the other group modern human beings.

Evolutionists point to Australopithecus, whose Latin name means “South African ape,” as the first supposed common ancestor between humans and apes. The various types of Australopithecus were in fact nothing more than an extinct species of ape. Some of these were very large and others much smaller, while other had more delicate features.

Evolutionists attach the prefix Homo, meaning “man,” to the next stage, or genus, of human evolution. They claim that creatures in the Homo sequence were more advanced than Australopithecus and not all that different from modern-day humans. The final stage of this supposed evolutionary process is Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man.

The facts, however, are that Australopithecus is an extinct apes, while those in the Homo series are races of human beings who once lived but have since become extinct. Evolutionists have set out various ape and human fossils in order of size to produce a chronology of human evolution. Yet scientific facts prove that these fossils do not prove any evolutionary process: Some of these entities depicted as the forerunners of modern humans were genuine apes, while others were genuine humans. (For more details, see The Evolution Deceit, by Harun Yahya.)

However, since evolutionists had made such a daring claim, they needed to prove it, at least in their own minds, and so attempt to present so-called evidence by resorting to various frauds.

In their search for evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution, they most frequently resort to the fossil record. But when examined carefully and objectively, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution at all, but totally undermines it. Yet because evolutionists generally offer biased evaluations of fossils and pass them on to the public, many people imagine that the fossil record actually corroborates the theory of evolution.

That some fossil discoveries are open to all kinds of interpretation is of the very greatest use to evolutionists. Fossils are usually insufficient for any certain conclusions. They tend to consist of partial and scattered bone fragments. It is therefore a simple matter to distort the data in whatever direction one chooses. Indeed, evolutionists construct their imaginary reconstructions (models or drawings) on the basis of fossil remains in such a way as to corroborate the claims of evolution. Since people are most easily influenced by visual materials, their aim is to use imagination to convince people that such creatures actually once existed.

Evolutionist researchers generally produce their reconstructions of imaginary, human-like beings on the basis of a single tooth, fragment of jawbone, or a tiny arm bone and then sensationally declare these to be links in the story of human evolution. Such drawings have played a considerable role in forming the public’s image of primitive man.

Yet even so, evolutionists still make frequent confessions that such interpretations are often most open to fraud and bias.

Charles Darwin:

You ask whether I shall discuss “man”;—I think I shall avoid whole subject. . . My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for 20 years, will not fix or settle anything. . . . 240

. . . but I was dreadfully disappointed about [the evolution of] Man. 241

Richard Leakey, a well-known evolutionist:

“David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, ‘If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got, he’d surely say, ‘Forget it: there isn’t enough to go on.’ ”242

Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. 243

Donald C. Johanson is an American paleoanthropologist and Professor at Arizona State University, in addition he is the director of the Institute of Human Origins:

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain. 244

F. Clark Howell, Professor and Chairman of the Anthropology Department at University of Chicago, discusses Piltdown Man, one of the most notorious forgeries in history:

Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape’s or the skull to be a human’s. Instead, they declared each part as [from] an in-between [species] of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or “Dawson’s Dawn Man”), and wrote some 500 books on it. The “discovery” fooled paleontologists for forty-five years.245

Wray Herbert is psychology editor for Science News, editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, and science and medicine editor at US News & World Report:

According to John Hopkins University anthropologist Alan Walker, there is a long tradition of misinterpreting various bones as human clavicles; in the past, he says, skilled anthropologists have erroneously described an alligator femur and the toe of a three-toed horse as clavicles. 246

Boyce Rensberger is author of popular science books and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

In 1984, a 12-year old boy of the Homo erectus species, dated at 1.6 million years old, was dug up in Kenya. His body skeleton was virtually indistinguishable from our own. 247

Jerald M. Loewenstein and Adrienne L. Zihlman in New Scientist, dated December 1988:

. . . anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages.Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this. . . . The subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many palaeontologists advocate with almost religious fervour, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree. On the contrary, almost every conceivable combination and permutation of living and extinct hominoids has been proposed by one cladist or another. 248

Robert D. Martin is Curator of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University:

It should be noted at the outset that substantial fossil remains are known for all of the species listed below (a quite unusual situation with respect to the primate fossil record generally), but that there is virtually no fossil evidence relating to human evolution, other than a few fragments of dubious affinities, before about 3.8 Ma [million years] ago.249

David Pilbeam

David Pilbeam is Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum:

My reservations concern not so much this book [Richard Leakey’s Origins], but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. . . . Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; …. our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. 250

Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data. . . . We are unaware of many of our assumptions. 251

In the physical realm, any theory of human evolution must explain how it was that an ape-like ancestor, equipped with powerful jaws and long, dagger-like canine teeth and able to run at speed on four limbs, became transformed into a slow, bipedal animal whose natural means of defense were at best puny. Add to this the powers of intellect, speech and morality, upon which we “stand raised as upon a mountain top,” as Huxley put it; and one has the complete challenge to evolutionary theory. 252

Robert B. Eckhardt is Professor of Anthropology at Penn State University:

Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man’s hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no. 253

Evolutionist scientists generally make deductions on the basis of a few fragments of bone in their possession. (Richard Leakey, second from left, and Donald C. Johanson on the far right.)

John Reader holds an Honorary Research Fellowship in the Department of Anthropology at University College London:

The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal—ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. 254

Lyall Watson has degrees in botany and zoology doctor of philosophy degree in ethology under Desmond Morris at London Zoo:

Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings—is, to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. 255

William R. Fix is the author of the book, The Bone Peddlers:

The fossil record of man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. . . Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is “no doubt” how man originated. If only they had the evidence. . . .256

Tim White on the far right

Dr. Tim White is an evolution anthropologist at the University of California in Berkeley:

A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley . . . The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. 257

In 1994, the American anthropologist Holly Smith conducted detailed analyses indicating that Homo habilis was not Homo—in other words, not human at all—but rather unequivocally an ape. Speaking of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis, Smith stated;

Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans. 258

Stephen J. Gould:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on Earth. 259

Evolutionist paleontologists Claude A. Villee is Professor of Biological Chemistry at Harvard Medical School, Eldra P. Solomon is licensed psychologist at Center for Mental Health Education, Tampa, Florida, and Percival William Davis is a professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College:

We [humans] appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . 260

Niles Eldredge is a paleontologist at Harvard University and Ian Tattersall is curator at American Museum of Natural History:

It is a myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery. If this were true, one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found, the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything, the opposite has occurred. 261

Henry Gee is an author who has been published in Nature magazine:

. . . the chain of ancestry and descent . . . [is] a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. 262

John Durant is a historian at Oxford University; from a meeting at British Association for the Advancement of Science:

Could it be that, like “primitive” myths, theories of human evolution reinforce the value-systems of their creators by reflecting historically their image of themselves and of the society which they live? 263

. . . Time and again, ideas about human origins turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our remote ancestors. . . . [W]e are in urgent need of the de- mythologisation of science. 264

The bones of “Lucy”

Confessions Regarding “Lucy”

During the course of research in Ethiopia’s Hadar Desert in 1974, a 25% intact hominid skeleton estimated to be 3 million years old was discovered and was given the name “Lucy.” This skeleton, which evolutionists claimed was of a forerunner of modern man, was 1.20 meters high and had a skull volume of 410 cubic centimeters, which is very small, even by the standard of modern apes.

Although evolutionists were perfectly well aware that Lucy was nothing more than an extinct form of ape, they ignored all her ape-like characteristics for the sake of the role as the ancestor of man that they had ascribed to her.

Richard Leakey:

Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of Paris,” thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to. 265

Albert W. Mehlert is an evolutionist and paleoanthropology researcher:

The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The “evidence” for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing. 266

Confessions Regarding the Neanderthals

A Neanderthal skull

The Neanderthals appeared suddenly in Europe around 100,000 years ago, disappearing again—or else assimilating with other human races—just as rapidly and silently 35,000 years ago. The only difference between these and modern-day humans is that their skeletons were rather more powerful and their skulls, on average, slightly larger.

Neanderthals were a human race, and this is generally agreed upon by all. Evolutionists for long attempted to portray these people as a primitive species, but all the findings showed that the Neanderthals were no different to any well-built individual walking down the street today.

For that reason, many contemporary researchers refer to Neanderthal Man as Homo sapiens Neandertalensis and as a subspecies of modern man. Findings show that the Neanderthals buried their dead, used a variety of musical instruments and shared an advanced culture with Homo sapiens sapiens, living at the same time. In short, the Neanderthals were simply a large-bodied race of humans that gradually disappeared.

Charles Darwin:

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as

the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious. 267

C. Loring Brace, an evolutionist anthropologist:

Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features, Brace reported at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Phoenix . . . . Indeed, the present-day European skulls resemble Neanderthal skulls more closely than they resemble the skulls of American Indians or Australian aborigines. 268

Erik Trinkaus is Professor of Physical Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis:

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. 269

From Prevention magazine, an evolutionist periodical:

Dr. Francis Ivanhoe has claimed that the teeth of Neanderthal Man show specific evidence of rickets (caused by a Vitamin D deficiency) and that X-rays of the bones of Neanderthal Man show the characteristic rickets ring pattern. 270

Bonnie Blackwell is an evolutionist geologist at the City University of New York's Queens College:

Neanderthals were apparently quite similar to Homo sapiens in their behavior and cognitive capacities. In both groups, musical traditions probably extend back very far into prehistory. The Slovenian bone closely resembles several hole-bearing bones that were likely to have been used as musical instruments by humans at later European sites, according to archaeologist Randall K. White of New York University. 271

Sarah Bunney is an executive editor and science writer:

Paleontologists in Israel have discovered a fossil bone which shows that Neanderthals may have been just as capable of speech as modern humans. The bone, known as the hyoid, is from a Neanderthal who lived between 50 000 and 60 000 years ago. The hyoid, a small U-shaped bone, is a key part of the vocal apparatus in modern human beings. According to B. Arensberg and Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University and their colleagues, the fossil hyoid, in size and shape, is just like a modern human’s . . . The researchers believe that, despite their heavy jawbones, Neanderthals spoke a language. 272

The Neanderthals were a human race, with large, powerful muscles, who managed to survive in a harsh environment. Their tools remained the same for thousands upon thousands of years. There is no indication of evolution in their technology or behaviour. 273

Milford Wolpoff is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan:

Others helped a Neanderthal survive. Did they love him, did he make a valuable contribution to his community, were these his children and did they protect only their own relatives? Yes, we can invent all kinds of stories as to why this happened. The important thing is that these all belong to human beings. There are no animal fables and this behaviour of theirs points to a social depth. They knew everything, and the Neanderthals lacked nothing of modern man’s behavioural capacity.. 274

Chris Stringer is a British anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain:

I think the evolution debate is being highly personalized, and we are occupied with fields with great numbers of uncertainties. . . .275

Confessions Regarding Cro-Magnon Fossils

A Cro-magnon skull

Cro-magnon Man fossils were first discovered in March 1868 in a cave in Les Eyzies in France. There is no major anatomical difference between these individuals and modern humans, yet evolutionists try to use biased interpretations to portray Cro-magnon Man as different from modern human beings. In fact, Cro-magnon Man is a human race now estimated to have lived around 30,000 years ago.

The skull structure of people living in Europe today does not resemble that of Cro-magnons. Their skull structure and volume do, however, resemble that of some races currently living in Africa and tropical climes. On the basis of that resemblance, we can say that Cro-magnon Man is an ancient race originating from Africa.

Cro-magon Man disappeared very quickly. There is only one reason for that; paleoanthropological discoveries have shown that the Cro-magnon and Neanderthal races combined with one another to form the basis of today’s races.

Randall White is Professor of Anthropology at New York University:

Cro-magnon artifacts have a right to stand alongside those of the entire history of mankind. From a 20th century perspective the extraordinary thing about the existence of Cro-magnons is that they underwent no direct, gradual evolution from the crude and unformed to selectivity and perfection. The history of art begins 35,000 years ago. 276

James Shreeve is a science journalist in magazines like Science, National Geographic and Smithsonian:

A Cro-magnon skull

The December 1997 edition of Discover, one of the most popular magazines with evolutionists, took an 800,000-year human face as its cover story, under the following caption, itself an expression of evolutionist amazement: “Is this the face of our past?”

New dating methods have revealed that fossils thought to be 40,000 years old are actually 100,000 years old. Now, if Cro-magnons are older than the Neanderthals who lived 60,000 years ago, how can they be descended from them?

Britain; Dorothy Great discovered both Neanderthal and Cro-magnon remains in the Stark Hills behind Tel Aviv. Assumed that they were compatible with the previously estimated chronology, the Neanderthals were concluded to be around 60,000 years old, and the Cro-magnons around 40,000. Some researchers were unconvinced. They believed that the stratification in the caves had been damaged by water currents and determined a new date using another dating method.

Eventually it was concluded that modern humans appeared in the land of Israel before the Neanderthals. The new dating provoked considerable surprise, because it stated that modern-looking fossils were actually 100,000 years old. The Neanderthals, on the other hand, were 60,000 years old. On the basis of this evidence, Cro-magnons cannot have evolved from the Neanderthals.

There are many scenarios concerning the extinction of species. . . . These are full of assumptions. There is no evidence of any wars or violent conflict in these valleys. All there is, is a strange disappearance, and isolated fossils. 277

Confessions About an 800,000-Year Human Fossil

One of the human fossils that have attracted the most attention was one uncovered in 1995 in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet the child had died 800,000 years ago. This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who led the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know, something primitive. . . . Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face. . .To me, this is most spectacular—these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it’s okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it’s the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it. 278

Confessions About 3.6-Million-Year-Old Human Footprints

Morpholological research into the footprints left behind by people who lived in the past has shown that these should be considered as modern-day prints. This truth is so obvious that even evolutionists have had to admit as much.

In 1977, Mary Leakey discovered footprints in the Laetoli region of Tanzania. These were in a stratum calculated to be 3.6 million years old and, even more importantly, were identical to those any modern human being would leave. These footprints were later examined by eminent paleoanthropologists, Tim White among them:

Make no mistake about it, . . . They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to ell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. 279

Louise Robbins is the anthropologist who worked closely with Mary Leakey on the Laetoli project:

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. 280

Russell H. Tuttle is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago:

Solely because of these prints’ age, evolutionists ascribe them to A. afarensis. Research, however, shows that the people who left these footprints behind were not A. afarensis with prehensile hands and feet, but human beings identical to those living today.

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them. . . . In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans. 281

In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo. . . . In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis. 282

Elaine Morgan is an evolutionist writer and researcher for documentary television in Britain:

Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) Why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) “We do not yet know”; 2) “We do not yet know”; 3) “We do not yet know”; 4) “We do not yet know.” The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers. 283

Lord Solly Zuckerman is Professor of Anatomy at Birmingham University and chief scientific adviser to the British government:

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. 284

Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature, without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. 285

Robert Eckhardt is Professor of Anthropology at Penn State University:

Neither is there compelling evidence for the existence of any distinct hominid species during this interval, unless the designation “hominid” means simply an individual ape that happens to have small teeth and a correspondingly small face. 286

Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 467.


240 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 467.
241 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 298.
242 Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Michael Joseph Limited, , 1981, p. 43.
243 Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1977, p. 111;David Johanson , and Edy Maitland, , Lucy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. p. 157.
244 Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 257,258.
245 F. Clark Howell, Early Man, New York: Time Life Books, 1973, pp. 24-25.
246 Herbert, Wray, “Hominids Bear Up, Become Porpoiseful,” Science News, Vol. 123 (April 16,
1983), p. 246.
247 Boyce Rensberger, “Human Fossil is Unearthed,” Washington Post, October, 19, 1984, p. 11.
248 Lowenstein, J. & Zihlman, A., “The Invisible Ape,” New Scientist, Vol. 120, 3 December 1988, pp. 56, 58, 59.
249 Robert D. Martin, Primate Origins and Evolution, Princeton University Press, 1990, p. 82.
250 David Pilbeam, American Scientist, Vol. 66, May-June, 1978, p. 379.
251 David Pilbeam, “Rearranging Our Family Tree,” Nature, June 1978, p. 40.
252 Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins, 1987, New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 312-313.
253 Robert B. Eckhardt, “Population genetics and human origins,” Scientific American, Vol. 226(1), January 1972, p. 94.
254 John Reader, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?,” New Scientist, Vol. 89, No, 12446, 26 March, 1981.
255 Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
256 William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, pp. 150-153.
257 Dr. Tim White, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199.
258 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325.
259 S. J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 85, 1976, p. 30.
260 Villee, Solomon and Davis, Biology, Saunders College Publishing, 1985, p. 1053.
261 Niles Eldredge, Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, pp. 126-127.
262 Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, New York: The Free Press, 1999, pp. 32, 116-117.
263 Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 312.
264 John R. Durant, “The Myth of Human Evolution,” New Universities Quarterly 35 (1981), pp. 425-438.
265 Richard Leakey, The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, p. 3.
266 Albert W. Mehlert, “Lucy—Evolution’s Solitary Claim for Ape/Man,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, (Dec 1985), p. 145.
267 Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter II, “On The Manner Of Development Of Man From Some Lower Form”
268 C. Loring Brace, “Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told,” The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), p. B-5,
269 Erik Trinkaus, “Hard Times Among the Neanderthals,” Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10.
270 F. Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?,” Nature, Vol. 227, August 8, 1970,pp. 577-579.
271 “Neanderthal Noisemaker,” Science News, vol. 15, (23 November 1996), p. 328.
272 Sarah Bunney, “Neanderthals Weren't So Dumb After All,” New Scientist, Vol. 123, 1 July 1989, p. 43.
273 July 25, 1998, Neanderthalles Discovery Channel
274 Ibid.
275 Ibid.
276 Ibid.
277 Ibid.
278 “Is This The Face of Our Past?” Discover, December 1997, pp. 97-100.
279 D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.
280 Science News, Vol. 115, 1979, pp. 196-197.
281 Ian Anderson, New Scientist, Vol. 98, 1983, p. 373.
282 Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64.
283 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 5.
284 Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p. 19.
285 Ibid., p. 64.
286 Robert Eckhardt, “Population Genetics and Human Origins,” Scientific American, Vol. 226, 1972, p. 101.

This sites is based on the works of Harun Yahya


About the Author - Other Sites - Email - Subscribe -