THE IMPACT OF FOSSIL SKULLS ON DARWINISM
Darwin’s thesis that human beings and apes are descended from a common ancestor was never supported by any scientific findings, neither when he first proposed it, not afterward. All the efforts exerted from then to the present—a period of some 150 years—have been in vain. All the fossils obtained to date have proved that apes have always existed as apes, that human beings have always existed as human beings, that apes did not turn into humans and that apes, and that humans have no common ancestor.
This fossil tiger
skull shows that tigers
have been exactly
the same for
the last 80 million
years, without undergoing
Despite Darwinists’ intensive propaganda and efforts aimed at intimidating academic circles, many scientists have nevertheless issued unequivocal statements that the idea of human evolution is not based on any scientific data. One such is the Harvard University paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam:
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.”3
William Fox, whose book The Bone Peddlers takes paleoanthropology as its subject matter, also says that so-called human evolution is unsupported by any scientific findings:
1) Many species of ape have existed over
the course of geologic history, and the
great majority of them have since become
extinct. Darwinists use these extinct
apes’ skulls to engage in various
kinds of speculation.
2) Features of the Homo
erectus skull, such as
the protrusions over
the eyebrows and its
brow, can also be seen
in certain present-day
races, such as the native
Malaysian on the
3) An aboriginal race will preserve its characteristic
unless it becomes intermixed with another
race. It will not, for example, develop
into a Western European race. No matter
how much time elapses, these people will
never evolve in such a way as to acquire different
characteristics; will never acquire a
greater skull size than the one they have
now, and will never acquire new anatomical
As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizes today who have the temerity to tell us that there is “no doubt” how man originated. If only they had the evidence. . . . .4
Faced by the disappointment inflicted on them by the fossil record and their own lack of evidence, evolutionists were reduced to setting skulls out one after the other, in a totally invalid sequence, and to speculating about these fossils, whose fraudulent nature had in any case long since been documented.
HUMAN RACES THAT ONCE
EXISTED IN THE PAST ARE NO
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
The Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) suddenly
emerged in Europe around 100,000 years ago and
became extinct—or else became completely assimilated by other races—some 35,000 years ago. The only
differences between them and present-day humans are
that their rather more powerful skeletons and their
slightly larger average skull sizes. Scientific findings
show that the Neanderthals were a human race no different,
in terms of intelligence and cultural levels, from
Cro-Magnon man, on the other hand, is of a race estimated
to have lived until 30,000 years ago. It had a
dome-shaped skull and a broad forehead. Its 1600-cubic
centimeter skull volume is again, slightly greater than
that of present-day humans. Cro-Magnon had thick protrusions
over its eyebrows, and a bony protrusion on the
back of the head that is a characteristic of Neanderthal
The visible differences between the Neanderthals and
Cro-Magnons can also be seen among present-day human
races. In the same way that structural differences
between an Anglo-Saxon and an Eskimo or an African
and a European do not suggest that one race is more
developed or backward than another, so physical differences
between races that existed in the past do not imply
that one was more backward or “ape-like” than any
other. These races disappeared from the Earth by becoming
assimilated with other races or by becoming extinct
in some other way. But they were still fully fledged
human beings, not at all “primitive” or “ape-like.”
In fact, the analysis of skulls belonging to apes, other life forms, and to human races that once lived in the past shows that all of them possessed all their characteristics during the course of their existence, and that they never underwent any changes. Living things never evolved, but were all created by Allah. As you shall see from the specimens included in the following pages, just as numerous life forms such as frogs, lizards, dragonflies, flies and cockroaches have undergone no changes in their limbs and other organs, so have their heads undergone no changes. The head regions of birds and fish have also remained unchanged.
The skulls of countless mammals such as leopards, wolves, foxes, tigers, rhinoceroses, tigers, pandas, lions and hyenas have also stayed exactly the same over the millions of years since they were first created. This stability constitutes a definitive refutation of the idea that living things evolved.
The stability that all these life forms reveal also applies to human beings. In the same way that the skull structures of tens of thousands of species have not changed over millions of years, so there have been no alterations in the human skull. Fish have always existed as fish, birds as birds, reptiles as reptiles, and human s as human beings. There is no evidence of steady progress from the primitive to the more advanced, of the kind claimed by evolutionists, in the organs or structures of any living thing.
In relating the fictitious story of human evolution, evolutionists point to the volume, eyebrow protrusions or brow structures of the skulls they find, and set up their own supposed evolutionary sequence and family trees. But the structural differences in fossil skulls are no evidence of evolution: These skulls belong either to extinct species of apes, or else to various human races that once existed. It is entirely logical that skulls belonging to different human races should display structural differences. Different species of fish have differently shaped heads. For example, the head shape of a trout bears no resemblance to that of an eel, although both are fish. Similarly, there may be differences between the skulls of different human races.
It is perfectly natural that there should be differences in the eye sockets, forehead structures, muscular structures and skull volumes between Pygmies and British people, Russians and Chinese, Australian Aborigines and Eskimos, Negroes and Japanese But these differences do not mean that one race is descended from another, or is more primitive or more advanced than another. An aboriginal race will always maintain the same distinctive features for as long as it does not intermarry with members of another race. No matter how much time passes, these human beings will never evolve in such a way as to acquire different characteristics. Their skull volumes will not become any larger than they are now, and they will not acquire different anatomical structures.
For example, various Malaysian native peoples living today possess the same large muscular protrusions and backward-slanting brow structure as that of the skulls of Homo erectus, which evolutionists regard as being a primitive ancestor. If evolutionists’ claims were true, the Malaysian natives in question should have a structure and appearance of humans who have recently evolved from being apes and have not yet developed fully into Homo sapiens. Yet that is not the case at all. The fact that anatomical features of the H. erectus skull can still be seen today shows that H. erectus was not a primitive species and also, that evolutionists’ scenario of the human family tree is a fiction.
In short, the fact that some past human races had anatomical structures different from human beings alive today in no way constitutes evidence in favor of evolution. Anatomical distinctions can be seen in all periods of recorded history and among all different human races. Americans and Japanese, Europeans and Australian Aborigines, Eskimos and Negroes or Pygmies all have distinctively different skulls. But this does not mean that some of these races are any more developed or more backward than the others.
If, thousands of years in the future, scientists discover the skull of an American who lived in the 2000s and was some 1.90 meters tall, and compare it with the skull of a Japanese individual who also lived in the 2000s but was only 1.60 meters tall, they will observe a great many differences between them—first and foremost, in terms of size. If, on the basis of these differences, they then suggest, that the Japanese were primitive and that Americans were several rungs higher up the developmental ladder, of course they will be making an interpretation that in no way reflects the true state of affairs.
In addition, skull volume is no criterion for measuring anyone’s intelligence or capacities. There are many humans with well-developed bodies but insufficiently developed intelligence. In the same way, many people have bodies and therefore, skulls, smaller than those of others, but who are nevertheless highly intelligent. Their skulls cannot be evaluated by the scientists of the future, at least not in a scientifically valid way and on the basis of dimensions alone, to set out any supposed evolutionary line of progression—because that sequence will not reflect the true facts. Differences in skull size are known to be totally unrelated to intelligence and ability. If someone spends his life in intense mental activity, his skull will not grow in size. Only his mental abilities will get stronger.. Intelligence varies, not in relation to skull size, but according to the organization within the brain itself.5
The following pages offer just a few examples of the countless fossil skulls that invalidate the theory of evolution. These specimens all prove that no life form has ever changed during its natural history; they have all existed with the same features they enjoyed when they were first created. In addition to this evidence, this book also contains statements that indicate and emphasize the dilemmas facing Darwinist thinking. For example, Darwinists, who illogically maintain that living things develop by constant change, are asked to account for the evident stability in every fossil life form. The theory of evolution, which suggests that human beings are allegedly descended from apes, has to explain why no process, similar to the imaginary one it claims took place in apes, occurred in other life forms. Evolutionists have no answer as to why a bear did not one day decide to walk on two legs, why a fox did not raise its level of intelligence enough to become a professor, or why a panda never became a composer writing stupendous symphonies. The reason why the subject is discussed using examples and logical progressions accessible even to children is that Darwinism is constructed upon unbelievable illogicality. Depicted as a scientific theory, Darwinism is in fact an unbelievably illogical ideology.
People have now fully realized that Darwinism, the worst scandal in the history of the world, is built around lies, hoaxes and irrational claims. In the 21st century, the whole world is witnessing Darwinism’s collapse.
THE MYTH OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS
FILLED WITH HOAXES
More than 6,000 species of ape have existed at one time or another. The great majority of them have since become extinct and vanished, leaving only some 120 species alive today. But the fossils belonging to these nearly 6,000 extinct species represent a rich source of hoaxes for evolutionists. Unable to point to any concrete evidence, evolutionists surround fossils of extinct apes with biased analyses and then present them as evidence for evolution.
For years now, evolutionists have been employing such methods in order to gather supporters and mislead the public. However, they now need to see that these methods are of no use. The false evidence used by evolutionists to make their tall tales of the alleged human evolution seem more credible—and the debunking of that evidence—are summarized below. However, there are many more evolutionist hoaxes than the few considered here. All the “ancestor of man” reports in the media, as well as the illustrations accompanying them are completely fictitious. Concrete scientific discoveries have now demolished the story that human beings became human by means of a gradual course of development.
Piltdown Man: A fossil skull was discovered in 1912 and described as belonging to a half-human, half-ape species. For the next 40 years or so, evolutionists used this fossil as one of their supposedly strongest pieces of evidence, making countless analyses and illustrations of it in a statement issued on 21 November 1953, however, Piltdown Man was finally declared to be a hoax. A dating test performed 40 years after its discovery revealed that the jawbone and the skull did not actually belong to each other.
More detailed examination revealed that the “Piltdown Man” skull had been assembled by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull, which was then aged using potassium dichromate. The way that the skull had been displayed in London’s Natural History Museum for 40 years and that no permission had been given for detailed scientific studies to be carried out during that time has gone down as a major scientific scandal.
Fossils discovered on the islands of
Java in 1891 and 1892 were given the
name Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus).
Fossils discovered near Pekin in
1923-1927 were given the name Pekin
Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis). In
1939, however, two experts, Ralph von
Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich,
revealed that both were actually normal
human beings.(1) And Ernst Mayr from
Harvard University had classified both
as human in 1944.(2)
ALL THE SKULL
THOUGHT TO REPRESENT
Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in 1922 by Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History, was depicted as belonging to an intermediate life form between apes and human beings. However, in an article published in Science magazine in 1927, Osborn’s colleague William Gregory stated that the tooth actually belonged to a wild boar—whereupon all evolutionist claims regarding the fossil were quietly laid aside. The illustration to the side, produced on the basis of a single tooth by evolutionists of the time, was published in the press.
This attempt by evolutionists to reconstruct a living thing on the basis of a single tooth is a striking instance of how biased and misleading they can be when it comes to defending and imposing their theories.
||Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in 1922 by Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History, was depicted as belonging to an intermediate life form between apes and human beings. However, in an article published in Science magazine in 1927, Osborn’s colleague William Gregory stated that the tooth actually belonged to a wild boar—whereupon all evolutionist claims regarding the fossil were quietly laid aside. The illustration to the side, produced on the basis of a single tooth by evolutionists of the time, was published in the press.
This attempt by evolutionists to reconstruct a living thing on the basis of a single tooth is a striking instance of how biased and misleading they can be when it comes to defending and imposing their theories.
The illustration above shows the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud 1 skull discovered in Israel. Its owner has been estimated to be 1.80 meters. tall, and its brain volume is the greatest so far discovered: 1740 cubic centimeters.
Neanderthal Man: After the first specimens were discovered in the Neander Valley in 1856, evolutionists suggested that Neanderthals were primitive ape-men. Subsequent archaeological discoveries, however, revealed that there was no scientific basis to that claim. Erik Trinkhaus, an expert on the subject of the Neanderthals and also an evolutionist, has admitted that, “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.”(4)
In addition, the size of the Neanderthal Man skull—200 cubic centimeters greater than that of present-day humans—reveals the invalidity of the claim that it was an intermediate form between humans and apes.
A fossil belonging to the Neanderthal race
The Taung Child: A fossil skull discovered by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 was initially
depicted as a supposed ancestor of man. However, contemporary evolutionists can no
longer maintain that it represents such an ancestor—because it subsequently transpired that
the skull belonged to a young gorilla! The famous anatomist Bernard Wood stated that this fossil
constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution in an article published in New Scientist magazine.
Lucy: This fossil, discovered in Africa in 1974, was widely esteemed by evolutionists and was the subject of some of the most intensive speculation. Recently however, it has been revealed that Lucy (A. afarensis) had an anatomy ideally suited to climbing trees and was no different from other apes we are familiar with.(6) The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.” One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps.(7)
In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man.(8)
Ramapithecus: A partial jawbone, consisting
of two parts, was discovered by G.E.
Lewis in India in the 1930s. Based on these
two jaw bone fragments, claimed to be 14
million years old, evolutionists reconstructed
Ramapithecus’s family and supposed natural
habitat (at side). For fifty years, the fossil was
portrayed as an ancestor of Man but following
the results of a 1981 anatomical comparison
with a baboon skeleton, evolutionists
were forced to quietly set it aside.(9)
1) B. Theunissien, Eugene Dubois
and the Ape-Man from Java, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1989, s. 39
(2) Garniss Curtis,
Carl Swisher and Roger Lewin, “Java Man”, Abacus,
London, 2000, s. 87
Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the
Neanderthals", Natural History, cilt 87, Aralık
1978, s. 10.
(5) Bernard Wood, “Who Are We” New
Scientist, 26.10.2002, s.44.
Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York:
Toplinger Publications, 1970, s. 75-94; Fred
Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication
of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for
Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature,
cilt 369, 23 Haziran 1994, s. 645-648.
Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that
humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor,
Nature 404(6776):382, 2000
(8) “Discovery rocks
human-origin theories”, Tim Friend, 21 March 2003:
Digest, Nisan 1981
NOT ONE OF THE INTERMEDIATE FORMS WITH ABNORMAL STRUCTURES—WHICH SHOULD HAVE EXISTED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS—HAS EVER BEEN FOUND
If evolution truly did take place, then the Earth’s strata should be full of billions of intermediate-form fossils. In addition, these millions of living things should have been distinctly abnormal in appearance because of the effects of mutations. Organs subjected to mutation many times over should have turned into abnormal forms. Before attaining their perfect and attractive present appearance, these living things must first have had abnormal transitional appearances. For example, before the emergence of the highly symmetrical human face with its two ears, two eyes, nose and mouth, there must have been a great many abnormal mutated faces with impaired symmetry, imperfect ears and eyes, the nose sited right between the eyes or on the chin, or where the ear should have been, and countless other such abnormalities.
Were Darwinists’ claims true, then the remains of a great many peculiar living things should be encountered in the fossil record, as shown in these illustrations: a large number of eye sockets, noses in different places, a jaw in both in the front and the
back, an abnormally developed skull, etc. However, research conducted over
the last 150 years has produced absolutely no such fossil remains. On the contrary, all the fossils unearthed so far show that all living things have been flawless, exhibiting no deficiencies since the moment they were first created, and have never changed or developed new features throughout the course of their existence.
THE INVALIDITY OF THE EQUINE EVOLUTION SERIES SCENARIO
A ll the horse skulls so far unearthed have been flawless and free from deficiencies, just like those of present-day horses. None of them have any pathological features such as semi-developed bones, teeth atop of the skull, misplaced eyes in the jaw or asymmetrical three nostrils. If—as evolutionists would have us believe—horses attained their present forms by constantly changing and going through a great many different stages, then a great many skulls should exhibit structural impairments, as seen here. Traces of the mutations to which horses were subjected should also be visible in the fossil record. Yet no such traces have ever been encountered. Fossils are proof that horses never evolved.
Horses have a wide capacity for variation among themselves. Breeds of horse living today, though all of the same species, are very different in terms of their structures and dimensions. The error of the evolutionists who set up the so-called equine evolution series lay in depicting fossils of these different breeds as an evolutionary sequence.
A great many different breeds of horses are living in different parts of the world today.
Many evolutionists openly admit the invalidity of the equine evolution scenario. A four-day conference attended by 150 evolutionists held at the Chicago Museum of Natural History in November 1981, considered the problems facing the gradual theory of evolution. At that conference, Boyce Rensberger stated that there was no basis in the fossil record for the equine evolution scenario and that no such process as gradual equine evolution ever happened:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. (Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, 5 November, 1980, Part 4, p. 15.)