Deceptive Fossil Interpretations
Before going into the details of the myth of human evolution, we need
to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the general public
of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in the past. This
propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions" made in reference to
fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing
a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that
has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, or
films are all reconstructions.
Since fossils are usually disordered and incomplete, any conjecture based
on them is likely to be totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the
reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on
the fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the
evolutionary thesis. An anthropologist from Harvard, David R. Pilbeam
stresses this fact when he says "at least in paleoanthropology, data are
still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories
have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of
the actual data".43 Since people are
highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve
the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed
creatures really existed in the past.
At this point, we have to highlight a particular point: reconstructions
based on bone remains can only reveal the very general characteristics
of the object, since the real distinctive details are soft tissues that
quickly vanish in time. Therefore with the speculative interpretation
of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally
dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten
from Harvard University, explains the situation like this:
THREE DIFFERENT RECONSTRUCTIONS
BASED ON THE SAME SKULL
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking.
The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the
underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid
skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher.
These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if
any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public So put
not your trust in reconstructions.44
As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories"
that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example,
the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus
robustus (Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of such a forgery.
The biased interpretation of fossils or fabrication of many imaginary
reconstructions may be an indication of how frequently evolutionists have
recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate
forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.
IMAGINARY DRAWINGS: In
their pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give
shape to features that do not actually leave any
Geheimnisse Der Urzeit, Tiere und Menschen,
National Geographic, March 1996
fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose
and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other
bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed
pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their
families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However,
these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart
in the fossil record.