MANY years we hear that have been found the fossil remains of ape-men. The scientific literature is full of illustrations depicting these creatures. These are the rings of evolutionary transition between the animals and man? Our ancestors were ape-men? Evolutionary scientists say yes. For this expression often read like this heading of an article that appeared in a scientific journal: "How la scimmia diventò uomo”.1
2 Alcuni evoluzionisti, è vero, non credono che questi ipotetici antenati dell’uomo debbano essere definiti “scimmie”. Nondimeno, alcuni loro colleghi non vanno troppo per il sottile.2 Stephen Jay Gould ha detto: “Gli uomini si sono evoluti da antenati dall’aspetto scimmiesco”.3 E George Gaylord Simpson asserì: “Il comune antenato sarebbe sicuramente chiamato scimmia nel linguaggio popolare da chiunque lo vedesse. E dato che il termine scimmia, antropomorfa o no, è definito dall’uso popolare, gli antenati dell’uomo erano scimmie antropomorfe o erano scimmie”.4
3 Perché la documentazione fossile è così important to show that man is descended from ape-like ancestors? Because humans and animals present, there is nothing to support this thesis. As mentioned in Chapter 6, between man and animals today, including the family of great apes, there is an abyss. Since among the living is not any connection between man and ape, it was hoped to find in the fossil record.
4 From the perspective of evolutionary theory, the obvious gap that now separates man from apes is strange. According to this theory, as the animals spent at higher levels, become more adaptable to survive. As ever, then, the family of monkeys - creatures "lower" - still exists, while there is not one of the alleged intermediate forms considered more advanced on the evolutionary ladder? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "man-ape." There seems likely that all of the latest and, purportedly, the most advanced "rings link" between modern man ape-like creatures have been extinct, but not the lower apes?
That consistency has the fossil evidence?
5 From scientific literature, from what you see in the museums and television programs, one would think that should definitely esserci numerosissime testimonianze del fatto che l’uomo si sia evoluto da creature dall’aspetto scimmiesco. Ma è così? Per esempio, qual era a questo riguardo la documentazione fossile disponibile ai giorni di Darwin? Furono forse le testimonianze esistenti a incoraggiarlo a formulare la sua teoria?
6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists dice: “Le prime teorie sull’evoluzione umana sono, se ci si pensa, davvero molto strane. David Pilbeam le ha definite ‘esenti da fossili’. Cioè, per logica, queste teorie sull’evoluzione umana si sarebbero dovute basare su qualche testimonianza fossile, ma in realtà i fossili o erano così pochi da non influire minimamente sulla teoria, or missing altogether. So between the presumed close relatives of man and the first human fossil was just the imagination of scientists of the nineteenth century. " This scientific publication explains the reason: "They wanted to believe the evolution of man, and this affects the results of their work" .5
7 After more than a century of research, which now has the consistency of fossil evidence in support the thesis of "ape-men"? Richard Leakey said: "Those who work in this field have so few clues on which to base their conclusions are often forced to change it '.6 New Scientist notes:" Judging by the amount di testimonianze su cui si basa, lo studio dei fossili umani non merita d’essere considerato più che una branca secondaria della paleontologia o dell’antropologia. . . . La raccolta è terribilmente incompleta, e gli esemplari stessi sono spesso molto frammentari e non decisivi”.7
8 Sullo stesso tono, il libro Origini: Nascita e possibile futuro dell’uomo ammette: “Appena, seguendo la via dell’evoluzione, ci spostiamo verso gli ominidi, il nostro cammino si fa sempre più incerto, ancora una volta a causa della scarsità dell’evidenza fossile”.8 La rivista Science aggiunge: “La principale documentazione scientifica consiste in una raccolta pietosamente limitata bone by which to reconstruct the evolutionary history of man. One anthropologist has compared the company to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace starting from thirteen pages selected at random ".9
9 What is the consistency of actual fossil evidence relating to" ape-men "? Here are some opinions. Newsweek: "'The fossils could all on one desk,' said Elwyn Simons of Duke University" .10 The New York Times: "The known fossil remains of human ancestors would fill a pool table, a pretty poor platform from which scrutinize the last million years ".11 Science Digest:" Without noteworthy all the material evidence in support of human evolution still does not fill a single coffin! . . . The apes, for example, seem to have come out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern man - this is a standing, naked, tool manufacturer, from massive brain - is, if we must be honest with ourselves, a fact equally mysterious ".12
10 The men of modern type , able to reason, plan, invent, build on knowledge gained and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. In his book The Mismeasure of Man, Gould says: "There are no traces of biological changes in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago" .13 Thus the book The Universe Within (The universe is all ' internal) asks: "What prompted the change. . . to produce, overnight, the modern man with his highly specialized brain? "14 Evolution is not able to respond. But the answer could not be in the creation of a living being different and highly complex?
Where are the "rings" conjunction? 11
But scientists have not trovato i necessari “anelli” che collegano l’uomo ad animali scimmieschi? Non secondo le testimonianze. Science Digest parla dell’“assenza di un anello mancante che spieghi la comparsa relativamente improvvisa dell’uomo moderno”.15 Newsweek ha commentato: “L’anello mancante fra l’uomo e le scimmie antropomorfe . . . non è che la più affascinante di un’intera gerarchia di creature fantasma. Nella documentazione fossile, gli anelli mancanti sono la norma”.16
12 Non essendoci anelli di congiunzione, si devono fabbricare da testimonianze inconsistenti “creature fantasma” da spacciare come realmente esistite. Questo spiega il perché di contradictions such as this over by a scientific journal: "Men have evolved gradually from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists argue, for sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working essentially on the same data, it seems to have reached the opposite conclusion ".17
13 This helps us to better understand the comments of the esteemed anatomist Solly Zuckerman, who, in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh , wrote: "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in the evolution of man, the holy grail of an irreducible sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation e il mito fioriscano altrettanto rigogliosi oggi come cinquanta o più anni fa”.18 Zuckerman osservò che troppo spesso si ignoravano i fatti per sostenere le opinioni in voga nonostante l’evidenza del contrario.
L’“albero genealogico” dell’uomo
14 Un risultato è che l’“albero genealogico” della presunta evoluzione dell’uomo da animali inferiori cambia in continuazione. Per esempio, a proposito di certi fossili rinvenuti in epoca più recente, Richard Leakey disse che la scoperta ‘segnava la fine del concetto secondo cui i fossili più antichi potessero disporsi in una sequenza ordinata di trasformazioni evolutive’.19 E in un resoconto the same discovery published in a newspaper read: "All the texts of anthropology, all the articles on the evolution of man, all the human family tree drawings should be thrown away. Apparently they are mistaken ".20
15 The hypothetical family tree of human evolution is littered with" rings "once accepted as such and then discarded. In an editorial in the New York Times notes that the evolutionary science "leaves much room for conjecture that theories help to understand the origin of man more things on account of its authors on the subject. . . . Often those who find a new skull seems to want to redraw the family tree of man, putting his discovery on the central line leading to humans and all the other skulls on the side lines that are lost in the void ".21
16 Reviewing the book The Myths of Human Evolution (The myths of human evolution), the evolutionist Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine notes that the authors omit any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that "as for the rings that make up the set of ancestors of the human species, we can only guess," the magazine says, "Eldredge and Tattersall insist that the man tries in vain their ancestors. . . . If there was evidence, they say, 'we may confidently expect that, with the gradual discovery of other hominid fossils, the history of human evolution would become clearer. Instead, if anything, the opposite has happened '. " Discover
17 concludes: "The human species, like all others, will in some respects an orphan, having lost in the past the identity of his parents' .22" Lost, "perhaps from the perspective of evolutionary theory . But the alternative of Genesis Has not "recovered" as our parents are actually in the documentation fossil, that men in all respects, just like us? 18
Fossils reveal that man and apes had a distinct and independent source. For this there is no fossil evidence of a link between man and ape-looking animals. These ties have never existed in reality.
What did they look?
19 If man's ancestors do not look like monkeys, how come the scientific publications and museums around the world are filled with reproductions and reconstructions of ape men? Are based on what? The book The Biology of Race (The biology of race) answered: "In these reconstructions tissues muscle and fur is necessarily the result of imagination. " He adds: "The color of the skin color, shape and distribution of hair, his features, the facial appearance: about these characters, with regard to prehistoric humans, we know absolutely nothing" .23 Even
20 Science Digest said: "The vast majority of artists' conceptions are based more on imagination that evidence. . . . Artists must create something that is a middle way between the ape and man, the finding is considered more ancient, more ape-like appearance is attributed to him ".24 Donald Johanson, search for fossils, he admits: "No one can be sure how exactly it would pose an extinct hominid" .25
21 As New Scientist reported, there are "good enough fossil evidence to bring out our theories from the world of the imagination" .26 Therefore, as an evolutionist admits, the representations of the "ape-men" are "mostly fantasy. . . invented out of whole cloth ".27 In the book Man, God and Magic (Man, God and magic) Ivar Lissner therefore observes:" As we're slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, we must also understand that the first men of the Age Ice Age were neither brutal beasts or half-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct the Neanderthal man or even to Beijing ".28
22 Their longing to find traces of the" ape-men ", some scientists have fallen victim to outright fraud, such as that in 1912, Piltdown man. For nearly 40 years was considered authentic by most evolutionists. Finally, in 1953, the scam came to light and, thanks to modern techniques, it was discovered that human and ape bones were put together and artificially aged. In another case, was designed and disseminated a "ring mancante” dall’aspetto scimmiesco. Ma in seguito si venne a sapere che l’“evidenza” disponibile consisteva in un solo dente, il quale apparteneva a un maiale estinto.29
Che cos’erano?
23 Se le ricostruzioni degli “uomini-scimmia” sono congetturali, cos’erano allora quelle antiche creature le cui ossa fossili sono state ritrovate? Uno di questi primi mammiferi considerati antenati dell’uomo è un piccolo animale dall’aspetto di un roditore che si dice sia vissuto circa 70 milioni di anni fa. Nel libro Lucy — Le origini dell’umanità gli autori Donald Johanson e Maitland Edey scrivono: “Erano quadrupedi insettivori, similar in size and shape to the squirrels' .30 Richard Leakey calls it a mammal "primate-like mice" .31 Is there any concrete proof that these animals were the ancestors of man? No, only illusory speculation. No transitional stage has ever connected with something other than what it actually was: a small rodent-like mammals.
24 After this, the list generally accepted, and a "jump" acknowledged that about 40 million years, there are fossils found in Egypt and called Aegyptopithecus, monkey, Egypt. It is claimed that this creature to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have published illustrations of this little creature with titles like "Our ancestor was an ape-like creature." (Time) 32 "similar to the first African monkey called the common ancestor of humans and apes." (The New York Times) 33 The 'Aegyptopithecus. . . is an ancestor that we share with apes today. " (Source) 34 But where are the rings of connection between it and the previous rodent? Where are the rings which would link it to what comes next in the evolutionary sequence? Do not they have found none.
Rise and Fall of the "ape-men" After a 25
Another giant hole in the fossil record, we find another fossil creature that had been presented as the first humanoid monkey. He said he had lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus, Rama's monkey (legendary Indian prince). If they found trace fossils in India half a century ago. From these fossils we proceeded to build an ape-looking creature in the upright position. About it, says Origins: "At the current state of knowledge, is the first of those representatives of the human family known by the name of hominids" .35
26 fossil evidence on which rested this conclusion? The same book says: "The documentation on Ramapithecus is considerable, although in absolute terms it remains dramatically low, as fragments of the upper jaw and lower teeth and a collection of "36 Is this a" documentation "as" considerable "to allow the reconstruction of a" man-ape "in the upright position and define ancestor man? Yet this mostly hypothetical creature was depicted by artists as a "man-ape", and their evolutionary patterns invaded the texts, all based on some fragments of teeth and jaws! However, as reported by the New York Times for decades Ramapithecus "has occupied the position with maximum stability at the foot of the evolutionary tree of man" .37
27 Ma la situazione è cambiata. Fossili più completi scoperti di recente hanno rivelato che il Ramapithecus assomigliava molto alla famiglia delle scimmie antropomorfe attuali. Così ora New Scientist dice: “Il Ramapithecus non può essere stato il primo rappresentante della linea dell’uomo”.38 Queste nuove informazioni hanno indotto la rivista Natural History a chiedere: “Come ha potuto il Ramapithecus, . . . ricostruito sulla sola base di denti e mandibole — senza che si sapesse nulla del bacino, degli arti o del cranio — introdursi in questa processione che porta all’uomo?”39 È evidente che per far dire ai fossili quello che non dicono, come in questo caso, there must be a willingness to truly believe what you want.
28 Another quantum leap between this creature from the next "man-ape" listed as an ancestor of man. This is Australopithecus or southern ape. The first fossil of this creature were found in southern Africa to the twenties. He had a small brain case, which recalls that of apes, and pronounced jaw, to what was said, walked on two legs bent, his face was hairy ape. It is alleged that she had lived from three or four million years ago. Over time it was accepted by almost all evolutionists as an ancestor of man.
29 For example, the book The Social Contract (The social contract) said: "Unless one or two exceptions, all competent researchers now agree that the australopithecines. . . are in fact ancestors of man ".40 The New York Times wrote:" It was the Australopithecus. . . eventually evolve to Homo sapiens, or modern man '.41 And in the book Men, Time, and fossils, Ruth Moore wrote: "Judging from all the facts, the man had finally met his predecessors." And he declared emphatically: "The evidence was overwhelming. . . was finally found the missing link ".42
30 But when, at any campo, un’asserzione si basa su testimonianze fragili o addirittura inesistenti, oppure su vere e proprie frodi, prima o poi crolla. Così è stato per molti esempi passati di presunti “uomini-scimmia”.
31 L’Australopithecus non fa eccezione. Ulteriori ricerche hanno rivelato che il suo cranio “si differenzia da quello dell’uomo per altri motivi, oltre al minor volume cerebrale”.43 L’anatomista Zuckerman scrisse: “Se lo si confronta con crani umani e di scimmia, il cranio delle australopitecine risulta essere inconfondibilmente scimmiesco, non umano. Sostenere il contrario equivarrebbe a dire che il nero sia bianco”.44 Disse pure: “Le nostre scoperte non lasciano praticamente dubbi sul fatto che . . . l’Australopithecus non assomiglia all’Homo sapiens ma alle attuali scimmie, antropomorfe e no”.45 Anche Donald Johanson dice: “Gli australopitecini . . . non erano uomini”.46 Similmente Richard Leakey ritiene “improbabile che i nostri diretti antenati discendano da queste [le australopitecine]”.47
32 Se qualcuna delle australopitecine fosse trovata in vita oggi, verrebbe messa in uno zoo con le altre scimmie. Nessuno la chiamerebbe “uomo-scimmia”. Lo stesso può dirsi per gli altri “cugini” fossili che le assomigliano, come l’australopitecina di tipo più piccolo chiamata “Lucy”. Riguardo ad essa Robert Jastrow dice: “Il cervello dell’australopiteco non era grande in assoluto — solo un terzo del cervello umano”.48 È ovvio che anche questa creatura era semplicemente una “scimmia”. Infatti New Scientist afferma che il cranio di “Lucy” era “molto simile a quello di uno scimpanzé”.49
33 Un altro tipo fossile è chiamato Homo erectus, uomo a stazione eretta. Le dimensioni e la conformazione del suo cervello rientrano in effetti nei limiti inferiori di quelle dell’uomo moderno. Inoltre l’Encyclopædia Britannica osserva che “le ossa degli arti finora rinvenute non si distinguono da quelle dell’H[omo] sapiens”.50 Comunque, it is unclear whether this was a human or not. If it was, it must be simply an extinct branch of the human family. The human family
34 Neanderthals (named after the Neander Valley in Germany, where it was found the first fossil) was undoubtedly human. At first it was to be depicted as a curved-looking dazed, hairy ape. We now know that this erroneous reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton severely deformed by a disease. Since then, many fossils have been found Neanderthals, who confirmed that he was not very different to modern man. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle says: "There is no no evidence indicating that Neanderthals were somehow inferior to us ".51 The illustrations in more recent Neanderthals have therefore taken a more modern look.
35 Another type of fossil that is often encountered in the literature is the man of Cro-Magnon. It takes its name from the village in southern France where for the first time they were found the bones. These specimens were "so indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to admit that they were human," says the book Lucy.52
36 It is clear that there is no basis for believing that they existed "ape-men ". Men have all of the creation of a separate and distinct from any animal. They reproduce only after their kind. So it is today and always has been. All of the ape-like creatures lived in the past were nothing but monkeys, apes or not, men. And the fossils of ancient men who are slightly different to modern man is simply a proof of the diversity existing within the human family, just as today there are many varieties that live side by side. There are men who are over two meters and there are the pygmies, with skeletons ranging in size and shape. But they all belong to the same "species" human, not some "species" animal.
Che dire della datazione?
37 La cronologia biblica indica che dalla creazione dell’uomo a oggi sono trascorsi circa 6.000 anni. Come mai, allora, spesso si legge di età molto più antiche attribuite a fossili di tipo umano?
38 Prima di dire che la cronologia biblica sia in errore, si deve tener presente che i metodi di datazione basati sulla radioattività sono stati oggetto di dure critiche da parte di alcuni scienziati. Una rivista scientifica ha parlato di ricerche indicanti che “le età calcolate in base al decadimento radioattivo potrebbero essere errate non solo di qualche anno, ma di ordini di grandezza”. E ha detto: “L’uomo, anziché essere sulla terra da three million and 600 thousand years, perhaps there is only a few thousand years ".53
39 An example of the 'clock' radiocarbon. This method is based on radiocarbon dating was developed over two decades by scientists around the world. It was welcomed as an accurate method for dating artifacts dating back to remote periods of human history. But later was held in Uppsala, Sweden, an international conference of experts - including radiochemical, archaeologists and geologists - to compare the results. According to the report of the conference, the fundamental assumptions on which they were based measurements are more or less unreliable. For example, scoprì che la velocità con cui il carbonio radioattivo si forma nell’atmosfera non è rimasta costante nel tempo, e che questo metodo non è attendibile se si datano oggetti anteriori al 2000 a.E.V. circa. 54
40 Si tenga presente che le testimonianze veramente attendibili dell’attività dell’uomo sulla terra non sono espresse in milioni di anni, ma in migliaia di anni. Ad esempio, nel libro Il destino della Terra si legge: “Soltanto sei o settemila anni fa . . . è nata la civiltà, che ci ha permesso di edificare un mondo comune”. 55 La storia dell’uomo: gli ultimi due milioni di anni afferma: “Nel vecchio mondo, la maggior parte delle iniziative che condussero the agricultural revolution was made between the 10000 and 5000 BC. " She also says: "Only in the last 5,000 years, man has left no written records of his life" .56 The fact that the fossil record evidence for the sudden appearance of modern man on earth, and that historical records are reliable for recent admission , is in harmony with biblical chronology relating to human life on earth.
41 In this regard, note what he said in Science the nuclear physicist and Nobel laureate W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers of the radiocarbon dating method is based on: "The research to develop the method of dating was done in two stages: dating, respectively, specimens of prehistoric and historical periods. Arnold [an employee] and I had our first surprise when our advisors informed us that the history goes back only 5,000 years ago. . . . You read statements that this or that civilization or archeological site has 20,000 years. We learned in a rather abrupt that these figures, these ancient times, are not known with accuracy '.57
42 Reviewing a book on evolution, the British writer Malcolm Muggeridge spoke of the lack of evidence supporting evolution. He observed that multiplied the speculation, saying: "In comparison, the Genesis looks pretty serious, and at least has the merit pay to what actually know about human beings and their behavior. " He added that the unfounded attributions of millions of years evolution of man "and the sudden jump from one skull to another that can not seem to be wholly fanciful to anyone who is not dominated by the myth of [evolutionary]." Muggeridge concluded: "Posterity will marvel indeed, and I hope I find it very funny that a theory so incoherent and unconvincing so easily have taken hold on the minds of the twentieth century and has been applied so widely and with so little policy "
0 comments:
Post a Comment