Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

Homo erectus

First discovered in 1891 in Java, erectus is known from many different finds from Africa, China, and Georgia (the Russian republic). Erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). There is also evidence that erectus was the first hominid to use fire.

Homo Erectus and Thereafter:
Human Beings
According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of
the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, then 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. There is no
difference between the postcranial skeleton of today’s man and that of Homo erectus.
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 man of our
day, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in
the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance)
and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).
It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not
necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the
internal organisation of the brain, rather than on its volume.82
The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of
Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realised 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
metres away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why
the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should
also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second
species named "Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the
experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus)
The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of
"Narikotome Homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was found near Lake Turkana in
Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been
1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different
from that of contemporary man. 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."83 Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he
saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."84 As we will see in the next chapter,
Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human
race.
Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo
erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of
protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are
probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of
modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically
separated from each other for significant lengths of time.85
Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive
anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and 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 man).
When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as
Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens,
it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within
this same diverse species.86

 

[tarekabdo12]

It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a
superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so
different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. In American Scientist,
the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000
were summarised in this way:
Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming
debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the
University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues.
They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be
eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to
the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural
breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus didn't exist.87
The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be
summarised as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens, but rather a
race within Homo sapiens".
On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and the
apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus,
Homo Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil
record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history. This is a most clear indication
of their being created.
Yet, admitting this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of
evolutionists. As a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as a half-ape
creature. In their Homo erectus reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On
the other hand, with similar drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or
Homo Habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings and
close the gap between these two distinct living classes.(Evolution deceit, Haroun Yahia)

 

[tarekabdo12]

Homo habilis

First discovered by the Leakeys in the 1960’s, habilis is now known from many different finds from Tanzania, Kenya and South Africa. “Habilis” means “handy man” and is so named because of the large number of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but projects less than africanus. The teeth are smaller than australopithecines, but are still larger than modern humans. Brain size ranges from 500 to 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the lower end, and erectus at the higher end. Also, habilis shows a bulge in the Broca’s area of the brain, which is essential for speech. This suggests that habilis may have been capable of rudimentary speech. Because the older habilis specimens differ so much from the later ones, splitting this species into two is being considered.

[FONT=&quot]Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]as Human[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, have[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]caused great difficulty for evolutionist paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]name Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a human species and its skeleton is[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]skeleton no different from today’s man's, is out of the question even according to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links"-that is, "transitional forms"-are needed. The concept[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]family of "fossil hunters". According to the Leakeys, this new species, which they classified[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]stone and wooden tools. Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s, were to completely[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis (which means "skillful[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]man", that is, man capable of using tools) should be classified as Australopithecus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]habilis, or "skillful southern ape", because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]common with the australopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]skeletal structure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable for[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]climbing. Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 cc average[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Research carried out in the years since Wood and Brace's work has demonstrated that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Homo habilis was indeed no different from Australopithecus. The skull and skeletal fossil[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]OH62 found by Tim White showed that this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]long arms and short legs which enabled them to climb trees just like apes of our day do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]indicated that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words, "human", at all, but rather[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]unequivocally an "ape". Speaking of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans.75[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a totally different method. This method[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]was based on the comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and apes which provided for sustaining balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]great apes. 76[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." This[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]meant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]species. Thus they concluded that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This finding yielded two important results:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e. apes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]forward-that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]man.[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

from:
Harun Yahya - The Evolution Deceit - Download Page

 

[tarekabdo12]

Neanderthals
Neanderthals were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in
Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but
quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from man of our day is that their skeletons
are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.
Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species", yet all the
findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street
today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New
Mexico University writes:
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.88
Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-species of presentday
man and call him "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". The findings testify that
Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities
with the Homo sapiens sapiens living during the same period. To put it precisely,
Neanderthals are a "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time.
(Evolution Deceit, Haroun Yahia)

 

[tarekabdo12]

Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis
and Cro-Magnon Man
Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary
evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to say about these fossils, as
there are only very minor differences between them and today’s human beings. Some
researchers even state that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to
native Australians as an example. Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have
thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller
cranial capacity.
The group characterised as Homo heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact
the same as archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two different terms are used to define
the same human racial type is the disagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils
included under the Homo heidelbergensis classification suggest that people who were
anatomically very similar to today’s Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000 years ago,
first in England and then in Spain.
It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped
cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above the average for
contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion at the
back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.
Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the structure and
volume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like those of some races living in Africa
and the tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an
archaic African race. Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that the Cro-
Magnon and the Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the foundations for the races of our
day.
As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species". They were different
human beings who lived in earlier times and either assimilated and mixed with other races,
or became extinct and disappeared from history.




The Secret History of Homo Sapiens
The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary
family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly ancient history of man.
Paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us
were living as long as 1 million years ago.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist paleoanthropologist, who discovered the
first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya,
Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene and that were no
different from today’s man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago.94
Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were
dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his
estimates were correct.
Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in
1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history of Homo sapiens was much older
than had been assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered 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 man
of our day. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered
the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue.
This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead 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-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.94
The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended
back to 800,000 years ago. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who
discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the
evolutionary family tree, Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they
made up an imaginary species called "Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca skull
under this classification.
A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even
earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in
Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo
Habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more
interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the
remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is
still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So,
according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and today’s
man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.95 This discovery must surely
invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that men evolved from ape-like species such
as Australopithecus.


Evolution Deciet, Haroun Yahia

 

[tarekabdo12]

Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis
and Cro-Magnon Man
Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary
evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to say about these fossils, as
there are only very minor differences between them and today’s human beings. Some
researchers even state that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to
native Australians as an example. Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have
thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller
cranial capacity.
The group characterised as Homo heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact
the same as archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two different terms are used to define
the same human racial type is the disagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils
included under the Homo heidelbergensis classification suggest that people who were
anatomically very similar to today’s Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000 years ago,
first in England and then in Spain.
It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped
cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above the average for
contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion at the
back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.
Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the structure and
volume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like those of some races living in Africa
and the tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an
archaic African race. Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that the Cro-
Magnon and the Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the foundations for the races of our
day.
As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species". They were different
human beings who lived in earlier times and either assimilated and mixed with other races,
or became extinct and disappeared from history.




The Secret History of Homo Sapiens
The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary
family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly ancient history of man.
Paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us
were living as long as 1 million years ago.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist paleoanthropologist, who discovered the
first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya,
Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene and that were no
different from today’s man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago.94
Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were
dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his
estimates were correct.
Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in
1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history of Homo sapiens was much older
than had been assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered 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 man
of our day. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered
the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue.
This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead 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-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.94
The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended
back to 800,000 years ago. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who
discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the
evolutionary family tree, Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they
made up an imaginary species called "Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca skull
under this classification.
A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even
earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in
Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo
Habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more
interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the
remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is
still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So,
according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and today’s
man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.95 This discovery must surely
invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that men evolved from ape-like species such
as Australopithecus.


Evolution Deciet, Haroun Yahia

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]Footprints of Today’s Man, 3.6 Million[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Years Old![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of present-day man back to 1.7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]contemporary man would leave.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]White wrote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Make no mistake about it, ...They are like modern human footprints. If one were[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.96[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of North California[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]made the following comments:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do-and the big[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]toe is large and aligned with the second toe… The toes grip the ground like human toes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You do not see this in other animal forms.97[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and moreover, a present-day human (Homo[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints wrote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]indistinguishable from those of modern humans.98[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]footprints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a 10-year-old present-day human and 27[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly normal people like us.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions for years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation, as it was[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]hard for them to accept the fact that a contemporary man had been walking on the earth 3.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]million years ago. During the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to have existed 3.6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]be so old, we would readily conclude that there had been made by a member of our[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]genus, Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.99[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Evolution Deceit, Haroun Yahia
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Jose Fly]

So tarekabdo, am I discussing this with you, or with Harun Yahya?

 

[tarekabdo12]

So tarekabdo, am I discussing this with you, or with Harun Yahya?

This is scientific based regardless of who says it. I read it thoroughly but I don't have time to write all this by my hands, I am studying now. So don't escape evidence. Moreover, You copied also and I didn't say a word because I believe You don't need to write everything if u r convinced. It's time saving.
If u think that I don't understand so u should be better than me.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is scientific based regardless of who says it. I read it thoroughly but I don't have time to write all this by my hands, I am studying now. So don't escape evidence.

If all you're going to do is copy all your responses from Harun Yayha, stamp your name on it, and say "THERE!", then it isn't really much of a conversation, is it?

Moreover, You copied also and I didn't say a word because I believe You don't need to write everything if u r convinced. It's time saving.

No, I didn't copy, I pulled from multiple sources and summarized their contents.

If u think that I don't understand so u should be better than me.

Ok, let's do it this way. Let's examine the material you copied from Harun Yayha, one part at a time. I'll start later today.

 

[tarekabdo12]

You are totally right, I should have given my understanding. I totally agree, but I apologize because I barely had time 2 read carefully. I have medical examinations and I find no time 2 do much more. I was awake till 3.30 am and I wake up at 7.30 am so I really have no time.I apologize once more.

 

[Gunfingers]

I have medical examination

The idea of a medical student who denies basic biology kind of scares me. :areyoucra

 

[tarekabdo12]

The idea of a medical student who denies basic biology kind of scares me. :areyoucra

I'm even an ordinary medical student-thanks God-but one of the 10 best students in relation to my pears of the same age. The problem is that u don't want to confess that the evolution theory lacks evidence supporting it.U've been occupied and overpowered by ur media.

 

[tarekabdo12]

this is also Kathelyne Hunt\s FAQ

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

and here comes the answer

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils

 

[tarekabdo12]

Good luck

 

[tarekabdo12]

I can't add a profile picture, whenever i add1 it doesn't appear. Can somebody help me?
Thank u

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok, let's examine Harun Yahya's material on Australopithicus species. He begins:

The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape", as we have
said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago.

First sentence, first problem. That they lived in Africa ~4 million to 1 million years ago is not a mere assumption, but is a conclusion derived from multiple dating methods. So right from the start, Harun Yahya is being deceitful.

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 which 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.

First, notice that H. Yahya provides no data or analysis to support his claim. He simply says "They're no different than today's ape" and expects the reader to accept this empty assertion on his mere say-so. Second, he never says what sort of modern ape he's comparing the Australopithicenes to. There are many, many different species of apes and quite a bit of variability within them, so which ones H. Yahya is comparing Australopithicenes to is an important bit of information that he doesn't provide.

But not only are his assertions totally without evidence, they're actually quite wrong. For example, A. anamensis does have primitive characteristics in the skull (e.g. teeth, jaws, and cranial capacity), but it also has more modern features elsewhere in the body. The tibia and humerus are both non-primitive and very human-like.

A. afarensis shows a bit more modern characteristics in the skull, most notably the canines which are unlike any modern ape of today. The jaw is an intermediate shape between primitive apes and modern humans. Also, their pelvic and leg bones resemble modern humans more than other primates, ancient or modern.

When we get to A. africanus, we see that the cranial capacity now exceeds that of modern chimps, the teeth are more human-like, and the jaw is very human-like.

To summarize so far, we see in the Australopithicenes exactly what you agreed we should see under human/primate common ancestry, i.e. fossil specimens that show a mixture of human-like and primitive primate characteristics.

Next, H. Yahya states:

Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, 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, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary ape genus and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.

Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of today’s orangutans.

Wow, seems pretty damning, doesn't it? Except....

Solly Zuckerman did his work in the 1950's, when all that was known about Australopithicenes stemmed from a few bone and teeth fragments. IOW, his work is roughly 60 years out of date. But H. Yahya doesn't tell you that, does he? Don't you agree it's important information to have?

Oxnard's work came in the 1970's, and he argued that Australopithicenes were not directly ancestral to humans, but were instead a side-branch in our evolutionary tree. He also concluded that they were bipedal, directly contrary to what H. Yahya claimed. You can access Oxnard's paper by CLICKING HERE.

So in sum, we see that H. Yahya argues via empty assertion, misrepresents the fossil specimens, conceals important information, and misrepresents the research he cites.

Why do you think he does that? Do you still consider Harun Yahya a reliable source of information?

 

[tarekabdo12]

The idea of a medical student who denies basic biology kind of scares me.

I don't know why many evolutionists try 2 visualize the idea of creation as abandoning to science. Yet, you find that many great scientists were advocating the principle of creation as Newton, Einstein, Max plank, Mendel, Pasteur and others. I think this a kind of weaseling.

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]In addition, religions carry everything good to the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Keeping in mind the importance of religion and the truth of religion are two completely different things, with either one being able to be true without the other, religion is important because it provides us with rules for living on which we advance our society. It is possible for non-religious people to act by religious morals, but in general they don't, and the ones that do are usually trying to prove that they don't need religion, rather than striving to make the world better. Religion is the hope which motivates the human race to advance itself beyond its current limitations.[/FONT]