“Of course, only a fool would question the theory of evolution, even though the theory is most closely associated with a man who, along with other members of his clan, was a key figure in the eugenics movement and even though the concept of natural selection just happens to nicely compliment the eugenics agenda, which in turn, dovetails nicely with the agenda of the ‘peak oil’ crowd, whose theory, as we all know, rests upon the notion of oil as a ‘fossil fuel,’ which is taken as a given by most of the scientific community, which just goes to show you, I suppose, that you shouldn’t always listen to the scientific community.” David McGowan, 25th July 2006
Are the origins of the human race really what we have been taught and assumed all our lives to be true? The received wisdom, relayed to our grand-parents, parents, ourselves and our children, is that we all evolved from single-celled organisms, born of amino acids combining together in the ‘primordial soup’, through a series of greater and more complex organisms to the ape-like creatures that were our supposed ancestors and thence to human beings. No arguments or discussions as to the veracity or proof of this proposition are tolerated. It is a fact, end of story – period. Accept it or be ridiculed and worse.
I believe that this is an absurd and monstrous deception and that we are no more descended directly from single-celled creatures or even apes than we are from unicorns or goblins. Evolution, or to be more precise the ‘theory of evolution’ is exactly that, a theory and an extremely tenuous one at that. There is a veritable mountain of evidence to contradict this premise and also to suggest that Darwin was part of the overall conspiracy and grand deception that continues to this day. He is even rumoured by some sources to have confessed in anguish in his last days, to the hoax he was instrumental in inflicting on a gullible humanity and indeed some of his quoted statements late in his life directly bear-out that premise.
My research has personally led me to believe that evolution was conceived and promoted deliberately as a way of discrediting and thus replacing organised religion as a belief system. By the second half of the nineteenth century, organised, mainstream religion was just beginning to lose its vice-like grip as a control mechanism of the subdued masses and there was a small but growing band of people who were questioning the unthinkable – was Christianity or indeed any religion, the truth after all? To combat this dangerous turn of events, what was needed was another false creed to supplant organised religion. It does not matter to the Elite what false paradigms we believe in, just so long as we believe in something, anything that will lead us away from the real truth. So, in the mid-nineteenth century, they simply decided to replace their fading, old-fashioned myth of faith-based creationism with something more in line with the fashionable, brave new world of scientific discoveries, hence the more credible, modern, ‘scientific’ myth of evolution. As alluded-to previously, it is also, I believe, more than coincidence that the theory of evolution was not only originally propounded by Elite eugenicists but also that the tenets of evolutionary dogma nicely complement the fundamental principles of eugenics.
“The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control.” Michael Cremo and Richard L Thompson, ‘The Hidden History of the Human Race’
This extremely revealing book, exhibits in great detail and with literally thousands of case studies and examples, how we have been duped into believing that homo-sapiens as a species is much less than one million years old and is a product of macro-evolution from apes. However Cremo and Thompson have uncovered literally hundreds of examples of mainstream archaeological cover-up operations, to prevent the truth becoming widely known. And that truth is simply that there are in existence many, many examples of human remains, some dating back several hundred million years! One simple example:
“In Macoupin County, Illinois, the bones of a human were recently found on a coal-bed capped with two feet of slate rock, ninety feet below the surface of the Earth. The bones, when found, were covered with a crust or coating of hard glossy matter, as black as coal itself, but when scraped away left the bones white and natural.” ‘The Geologist’ magazine, December 1862
This coal was at least 286 million years old and may be as old as 320 million years, way, way beyond any timescales admitted by the mainstream regarding the possible antiquity of our species. Any such discoveries these days are never reported in the mainstream media, despite there being thousands of examples constantly occurring.
Interestingly, this distortion of facts in an attempt to ‘prove’ a huge falsehood to be the truth, has resulted in the classic, Hegelian ‘evolution versus creation’ argument to keep us all busy and distracted from searching for the actual truth. In other words, never mind the real facts, let’s all waste our time arguing the rights and wrongs of two directly ‘opposing’ creeds. Strange is it not that if one does not subscribe to the religion of evolution, then one is automatically dubbed a ‘creationist’ with all the negative connotations and inherent stupidity and ignorance that this has been manipulated and engineered to imply?
It is also known that Dr. Thomas Henry Huxley, a stalwart of the Elite establishment, Fellow of the Royal Society and a prominent Freemason, strongly encouraged and even cajoled Charles Darwin to publish his theory. Huxley would eventually become the ‘official spokesman’ for Darwin and even became known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, such was his forceful assertions of the truth of the theory. He was also the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, the author of ‘Brave New World’ a novel written in the 1930s that demonstrates an uncannily accurate depiction of a future society of oppressed masses in a similar vein to Orwell’s ‘1984’. Another grandson was Julian Huxley, famous as the first secretary-general of UNESCO, a branch of the Elite-controlled United Nations. Coincidence? I shall let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.
Already I can almost hear the calls for me to be burned at the stake for daring to question the great religion of evolution – for that is what it has become to so many people. I do not suggest for one moment that localised evolving of bodily features and functions of certain creatures (micro-evolution) does not take place over millennia in order to adapt to surroundings and for example, fine-tuning defences against predators. To suggest that, would be just as absurd. However, to believe that whole new species are created from others or from virtually nothing (macro-evolution) when the abundant, contrary evidence is examined seems too far-fetched and unscientific to be anything but an elaborate hoax and a deliberate deception, perpetuated by wholesale propaganda.
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of evolution accomplishing a major transition – every palaeontologist knows that most species don’t change.” Stephen Gould, evolutionary biologist, Harvard University 1980.
“I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.” W.R. Thompson, Canadian scientist.
“…as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in a confusion of halfway species instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?” Charles Darwin.
Darwin’s own answer to this particular question was that there had been insufficient time since his theory was espoused to thoroughly check the available fossil records. Interesting hypothesis yes, but now proven to be totally incorrect. We have now had almost another 150 years since the death of Darwin to rectify this inconvenient fact, but evolutionary ‘science’ is no further forward in this respect than it was in the 1860s.
“Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science.” Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist, the Museum of Natural History, London
“Not many scientists are willing to risk their livelihood to point out the facts. They remain mute, mouthing the party line when necessary in order to keep their positions. Those illogical arguments mouthed by the scientists then fuel misunderstanding among those who are unable to double-check the truth and logic behind the theory of evolution.” Duncan Long.
“Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another.” Charles Darwin, ‘My Life and Letters’, Vol. 1, page 210
That contemporary, great champion of evolutionary myth and dogma, Professor Richard Dawkins, latterly of the Elite-funded and controlled, great educational propaganda machine, Oxford University and author of ‘The Selfish Gene’ and ‘The God Delusion’, wastes no time in denouncing, belittling and even insulting anyone who dares question the great pseudo-religion of evolution. Why would this be? Why is it such a crime or heresy to question or debate widely-held scientific beliefs? Is Dawkins an evolutionist per se or simply anti-religion, choosing evolution as the only viable alternative? This of course is the classic Hegelian trap. Present two options to choose from and then encourage the masses to pick their favourite and debate the pros and cons until we lose sight of the real issue. We should ask why the mainstream media even allows Dawkins a platform for his mostly disingenuous tirades, whilst denying it to those who espouse the contrary view in a more considered, rational or scientific way. Dawkins’ ironically, somewhat evangelical–type arguments have brought him largely unreported ridicule from many quarters with even the hard-line Darwinian, Michael Ruse suggesting that Dawkins’ rants make him feel “embarrassed to be an atheist”.
“When you find issues/controversies which people love to debate endlessly, which are emotionally inflammatory and which divide the masses into oppositional stances/groups, it is a pretty strong possibility that the controlling elites might be busy behind the scenes, fomenting these quarrels and keeping them alive.” kennysideshow.blogspot.com 15th November 2011
Could Dawkins, knowingly or un-knowingly be a puppet of the Elite, a so-called ‘shill’ or ‘useful idiot’ who is discreetly encouraged to spread his dis-information to as wide an audience as possible? If so, he certainly would not be the first nor the last, one suspects.
Richard Milton was initially an ardent believer in Darwinian doctrine until he began to investigate the myths and legends of evolutionary theory in depth. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he realised that there were many anomalous elements in the theory. He therefore decided to put every main classic ‘proof’ of Darwinism to the test. His results left him stunned at first. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of even rudimentary investigative journalism. Eventually, he published a book titled “The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism”.
“I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand – it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by the prominent Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, as ‘loony’, ‘stupid’ and ‘in need of psychiatric help’ in response to purely scientific reporting.” Richard Milton
Do we detect shades of the Soviet Union in the 20th century, when so-called dissident scientists there began speaking out against the diktats and manufactured reality of Stalin’s regime?
If all the preceding assertions are true, this all begs the question, ‘what is the point of the deception’? If someone goes to all that trouble to make sure we believe something that is not and cannot be proven, there must be a reason for it and a hidden agenda behind it. Indeed, this simple test can be applied to anything but in this case the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that it is done in order to deceive and therefore impose and maintain control by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the real truth of our origins and purpose as a species.
Fossil records constitute the primary source for the evolutionists in searching for evidence for the theory of evolution. The fossil records certainly contain the remains of past human beings but when these are examined objectively, it may be seen that the records themselves are in no way in favour of evolutionary theory, but rather against it, contrary to the assertions of the evolutionists. However, since these fossils are incorrectly portrayed by the evolutionists and presented for public opinion with the intent of fulfilling pre-conceived ideas; many people are fooled into incorrectly believing that the fossil records actually verify the theory of evolution.
The evolutionists disingenuously use the fact that findings of fossil records are open to many different interpretations, to their own advantage and as ‘proof’ of their own assertions. The discovered fossils are usually not sufficient to make a firm analysis, but are generally comprised of incomplete and fragmented bone pieces. This is why it is so simple for them to distort the available data and use them fraudulently to portray the desired objectives.
Belief in the theory of evolution has come to be seen as almost a life-style choice, a mode of thinking, even an ideology rather than just simply a theory like any other by its evangelical defenders who do not deem it necessary to take steps to prevent the distorting of data or even the committing of more serious, deliberate forgeries. Indeed, extremist advocates of evolutionary ideology do not hesitate to undertake any kind of distortion necessary in order to interpret the fossil records in favour of evolutionary theory. It is a classical scientific mistake to build any kind of theoretical framework from the basis of an incorrect initial assumption and yet I believe that this fundamental ‘mistake’ is made time after time, intentionally or otherwise, by the proponents of evolutionary theory.
“Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data… We are unaware of many of our assumptions. In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data… I am more sombre than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us.” David Pilbeam, anthropologist, Harvard University
It is true that ideological expectations can and do influence the interpretation of any given data set and the fact that fossil records are open to many different interpretations raises doubts on the reliability of the whole science of paleo-anthropology which is mostly under the control of the evolutionists. Certain prejudices and expectations will undoubtedly have an impact on the veracity of data extrapolation.
“…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extra-sensory 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.” Sir Solly Zuckerman, palaeontologist at Birmingham University, England
Since fossil records are usually unorganised and incomplete, the estimations based on them are inevitably totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based on the fossil remains are often treated in a speculative way in consort with the evolutionary theory. Since most people are more easily influenced by visual rather than written data, the aim of evolutionists is to entice them to believe that these reconstructed creatures have really existed in the past.
For this reason alone, the reconstructions of fossils and skulls are always designed to meet the needs of the evolutionary theory. Evolutionist researchers often set out from a single tooth, a mandibular fragment or even a tiny bone of the arm, draw semi-human-like imaginary creatures and then present these to the public sensationally as a link in the evolution of man. These drawings and reconstructions have indeed played an important role in the visualisation of the ‘primitive man’ image in the minds of people.
Reconstructions based on the bone remains can only reveal the general characteristics of the object at hand. Yet, the real defining details are soft tissues often muscles or tendons that do not leave an impression in the rocks as they decay too rapidly. Therefore, with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawing or model becomes totally dependent upon the imagination of the person constructing it.
“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 a man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.” Ernst A. Hooten, Harvard University
Indeed, evolutionists invent such ridiculous stories that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus, is a famous example of such a forgery.
A group of evolutionists who could not find any substantial evidence in the fossil records to support their at best, tenuous beliefs, actually decided to create their own evidence themselves. Some of these studies were even included in text books under titles such as ‘evolution conspiracies’ and this is probably a good clue to the fact that the theory of evolution is an ideology or a life philosophy that has to be contrived to be kept alive by considerable effort.
A well-known doctor and amateur palaeontologist, Charles Dawson announced in 1912 that he had found a jaw bone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. Despite the fact that the jaw bone was ape-like, the teeth and the skull were similar to a human’s. These specimens were designated by science as ‘Piltdown Man’, determined to be dated to half a million years ago and depicted as absolute ‘proof’ of the evolution of man for more than 40 years. Many scientific articles were written about the artefacts, many interpretations and drawings were made and it was presented as important evidence and taught as undeniable proof of the macro-evolution of mankind.
The discovery of ‘Piltdown-man’ engendered massive enthusiasm in paleo-anthropological circles and gave birth to many new debates which automatically assumed that evolution was absolute fact. For example, the famous English anthropologist, G. E. Smith pondered… “Did the brain or body of man evolve first?”
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the palaeontology department of the British Museum in London devised the ‘fluorine test’ to determine the date of fossils. When the test was performed on the Piltdown-man fossil, the subsequent result was shocking. It was proved conclusively that the jaw-bone of Piltdown-man contained no fluorine and this therefore indicated that the bone was underground no more than a relatively few short years and was therefore obviously a fraud. In addition, the skull itself contained a small amount of fluorine, enough to determine that it was a few thousand years old, only. It was also proved by the tests that the jaw-bone and the skull came from two entirely separate creatures and time-periods and must therefore be a deliberate hoax.
“The latest chronological researches made with the fluorine method revealed that the [Piltdown] skull was only a few thousand years old. It was manifest that the teeth in the jaw bone belonging to an orang-utan were worn out artificially and the primitive tools found next to the fossils were simple imitations sharpened by steel devices.” Kenneth Oakley, palaeontologist, the British Museum, London
Alongside these fossils were found some extinct elephant fossils and some tool remains made out of the bones of the same elephant species. These elephant fossils were used in the dating of the skull and in the tests it was understood that these elephant fossils were indeed very ancient. However, the jaw bone and the skull were much more recent than the elephant fossils. What then was the significance of these facts? It was surmised that the Piltdown ivory fossil had probably been found in Africa and then deliberately placed in the Piltdown site to give the impression that the false skull was as old as the elephant fossil in order to mislead. As the researchers studied the other animal fossils found in the same region in more depth, they found that these were also placed there with the deliberate intention of deception and the Piltdown bone tool was eventually discovered to be an elephant fossil shaped with a steel knife.
However, the hoax could still be regarded as a raging success by the evolutionists in as much as it had propagandised the population for almost half a century into a definitive belief of evolutionary myth and the Elite know very well that once any beliefs become deeply entrenched in the human psyche then even subsequent absolute proof to the contrary will not necessarily remove or diminish them.
Piltdown man skull
This fake fossil that occupied the evolutionist circles for a many years, demonstrates the lengths to which those who desire to prove the theory of evolution at all costs are prepared to go. Why would this be? Why would anyone fake scientific evidence? I suggest that it is done (in this case at least) to provide hard evidence of the proof of evolutionary theory in the absence of any other real or tangible facts that would verify it. This in itself speaks volumes to my mind.
After the detailed analysis completed by Kenneth Oakley, William le Gros Clark and J. S. Weiner, this forgery was eventually made public in 1953. The skull was discovered to be human and was a mere 500 years old and the jaw-bone was from a recently deceased ape. The teeth had been specially arranged and added separately to the jaw and the tooth sockets were set in such a way as to resemble those of a human. All these individual elements were then deceptively stained with potassium-dichromate to give them the false appearance of great age. These stains disappeared when the skull was dipped in acid.
There was also much evidence of artificial abrasion that in hindsight was so obvious that it begged the question; how had it escaped the notice of experienced palaeontologists for forty years? Sir Solly Zuckerman’s view was…
“As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished by caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.”
However, in my view, the story of the Piltdown-man fraud provides a pretty good answer to that question.
So, the ‘theory’ of evolution is based on the hypothesis that contemporary man today has evolved from his primate ancestors, diversifying from them between 4 and 10 million years ago. Although no definitive consensus has yet been reached by the evolutionary researchers, the generally accepted list of ancestors of humans reads as follows:
Australopithecus or ‘southern ape’
Homo habilis or ‘tool using man’
Homo erectus or ‘upright man’
Archaic Homo Sapiens or ‘old modern man’
Homo sapiens or ‘modern man’
According to the evolutionists the first ape ancestors of man, Australopithecus were creatures which had some human-like but possessed mostly ape-like characteristics. Some branches of the Australopithecus have allegedly become extinct and the others developed into the Homo (human) strain. Evolutionists also insist that Homo erectus and its subsequent incarnations were almost identical with contemporary man.
Today there are over 200 species of apes still extant. However, it is claimed that there were in total, more than 6500 species of primates that lived in ancient times but are now extinct. According to the estimates of scientists, only 3% of these primates are known. The species Australopithecus named by evolutionists are actually extinct apes which share some common structural characteristics with today’s apes.
The primary criteria used by evolutionists in categorising and evaluating human fossils are; bipedalism (upright walking), cranial capacity (the volume of the brain-pan) and cranial shape. Various classifications are evaluated according to those criteria.
Yet, some of these criteria, especially the cranial capacity are extremely unreliable. For example, the generally accepted cranial capacity figure for a contemporary ape is a maximum of 750 cubic centimetres (cc). The cranial capacity of humans is said to range between 900-2200cc, but among the Australian Aborigine natives, there are quite a number of individuals who have a capacity of around 850cc and furthermore cranial capacity is obviously subject to huge variations, depending on age, sex, race and other criteria. Cranial capacity can therefore never be a reliable means of measurement.
The crania of ape fossils and the crania of today’s apes are very similar to each other, being narrow and long. However, human crania are more voluminous with wide foreheads, the skull is flat with no protrusions, eyes are wide apart and the shape of the eyebrow ridges above the eyes change according to racial traits. In addition, the mandibles of humans are very much different from that of apes, bearing a distinctly parabolic shape.
To continue the argument, the arms of apes are longer in relation to the body and their legs are shorter, both toes and fingers of apes have grasping abilities and they are all quadrupeds – all true of both primitive and modern species. Indeed their entire skeleton is designed for a quadrupedal-type body structure. They stand on two feet only rarely, for example when reaching upwards to grasp tree branches or pick fruit, but generally spend most of their time on all-fours.
Bipedalism is a characteristic exclusive to humans (in primates) and this quality is the factor that most distinguishes human beings from other mammals. A human hip, pelvis, back-bone and spinal cord are designed only for a biped and could not function correctly in a quadrupedal frame. In short therefore, when analysing the ‘proof’ of evolution, one could realistically say that the most important and binding criterion should be bipedalism. Bipedalism is the critical factor that distinguishes humans from apes and therefore the focal point of the argument should be the question of whether our so-called ‘ancestors’ walked upright or not.
One of the most enduring chapters of the apocryphal human evolution story is Neanderthal man. Neanderthals, whom even the evolutionists deem to be ‘real’ human beings were regarded for some considerable time as ‘a primitive human race’ by the evolutionists and are considered by them as an intermediate, transitional form from ape to man, possibly in an attempt to solve the ‘missing-link’ conundrum which haunts evolutionary theory to this day and which has never been adequately explained.
The story of Neanderthal man began in the Neander valley in what is now modern Germany, where a local schoolteacher discovered a skull fragment, a thighbone and other small pieces of a skeleton in 1856. These pieces were subsequently studied by an anatomy professor named Schaafhausen at Bonn University and were eventually considered, after many surveys and comparisons, to be a typical human male with no anatomical abnormalities. According to Schaafhausen who made the first study, the bones belonged to an old human race, possibly to a Barbarian tribe who resided there before the Germanic races moved into the region.
Some years later however, the fossils were sent to the University of Berlin and re-examined there by Professor Rudolf Virchow. Virchow who later in life came to be regarded as the ‘father of pathology’, made a diagnosis which still holds validity today; that these bones belonged to a Homo sapiens (modern human) who had suffered from severe arthritis in his childhood and who had died from what appeared to be several blows to the skull.
Nevertheless, William King an anatomy professor from Queens University in Ireland who studied the fossils after Virchow, produced a totally new interpretation of the facts, which was in effect responsible for the Neanderthal man ‘legend’. As a long-time passionate advocator of the theory of evolution, King drew his conclusions from the structure of the bones in accordance with evolutionist prudence. He pronounced that this fossil was more ‘primitive’ than modern man and therefore could not be classified as such. He also assigned to the fossil, it’s now ubiquitous scientific name, Homo Neanderthalensis. According to King, it was a member of the Homo (human) species; but at the same time too primitive to be a human.
Two years later, similar skeletons were found in Belgium. These skeletons, which did not attract much attention initially, were subsequently brought to the attention of those who were looking for the supposed ape-ancestors of man, influenced strongly of course by Darwin’s book, ‘The Origin of Species’.
In 1908, further Neanderthal skeletons were found in Moustier in the region of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France. These were studied by Professor Boule from the Paleo-anthropology Institute in Paris, himself a dedicated and passionate supporter of evolutionary theory. Professor Boule himself was indeed responsible for creating the popular, primitive Neanderthal man image in our minds. Boule described his findings as follows:
“Neanderthals seem to be closer to apes than any other group of man and their intelligence is not wholly developed. The composition, position and the order of the cerebellum and spinal cord are the same as the apes. Besides, the feet have the same grasping attribute as in chimpanzees and gorillas. The anatomical structure of Neanderthals indicates that they walk in an awkward and clumsy way.”
At the same time, Professor Boule was responsible for the first Neanderthal face and body shape reconstruction. According to this reconstruction, which he made whilst relying upon his own preposterous pre-conceptions, “Neanderthal man is a half-man and half-ape being. He cannot walk upright and stoops, as do apes.” This utterly baseless theory made by Boule in accordance with his subjective interpretation of the Neanderthal fossils he had in his possession is responsible for the popular mental image we have of Neanderthal man, which still abides to this day.
Popularised depiction of a Neanderthal
Despite all the unstinting efforts of the evolutionists, this subjective approach to Neanderthals began to change in the 1950s. Advanced technology began to confirm that Neanderthals were by no means primitive humans, in sharp contrast to the prevailing view. In light of the advent of this new data, these questions were still pertinent; was Neanderthal man, alleged to live only 30,000 years ago, really as primitive as the evolutionists claimed and were Neanderthals primitive creatures who had no civilisation and unable to even walk upright?
These questions were answered by two researchers who examined the La Chapelle-aux-Saints fossils in 1957. These anatomists whose names were Straus and Cave discovered exactly why the fossil man found in 1908 and depicted in a reconstruction by Boule, stooped. As Professor Rudolf Virchow from Berlin University had pointed out originally, this fossil had also suffered from chronic arthritis, just as had the original Neanderthal man who was found in 1856. This insidious bone disease was deforming the shape of the spinal column and led to stooping due to the gradual decaying of the bones. His mandible bone was also deformed and in short, the reason why the Neanderthal fossil possessed a bent posture was the simple fact that he suffered from nothing more uncommon than severe arthritis and not as had been proffered by the evolutionist dogma, his relationship to a primitive species of man.
In all other aspects, ‘Neanderthal man’ possessed human characteristics. His big toe was not bent as Boule claimed; his thighbone was exactly the same as that of modern man and the report prepared by Straus and Cave culminated with the following words:
“If they had come back to life today, most probably they would not be discriminated from the other people in the New York subway, provided that they had bathed, were shaved and wore modern suits.”
Today, evolutionists remain evasive on the subject of Neanderthal man. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the reason why the fossil was stooped as illustrated in Boule’s crude and deceptive reconstruction, was the presence of severe arthritis. An authority on this subject, Erik Trinkaus of The University of New Mexico, remarked…
“Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotive, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”
The evolutionists deliberately ignore the difference between the average 1400cc cranial volume of modern man and the 1750cc volume of Neanderthals. They know very well that the announcement of this fact would pose another serious problem to their weak thesis. Since the evolutionists interpreted the cranial volumes they found, as evidence of evolution, accepting the fact that Neanderthal man had an even larger cranial volume than modern man would imply a regression in the evolutionary process as this would simply mean that Neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans.
Today Neanderthal man, as indeed is the case with many other subjects, is an assumed truism, an ‘assumption’ that has been deceptively transmuted into hard fact. The mainstream media and the film industry routinely discuss and treat the topic as though it were absolute, proven fact and not just a flimsy, insubstantial theory at best, as do educators and scientists. This is a recurring theme that as will become apparent, we find in many, many topics from history to astronomy, biology to physics and chemistry alike.
There are many other examples of fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, indeed far too numerous to cover in any detail or to do justice to in a volume such as this. However, even using the small amount of evidence presented here, there now would appear to be only one possible conclusion:
The evolutionary theory asserting that humans came into existence by macro-evolution from single-celled life-forms and latterly from other primates is not supported by any convincing, concrete evidence whatsoever and indeed is invalidated completely by much evidence to the contrary. The whole premise of the evolution of man is actually based on extremely subjective interpretations, poor or bad science, deliberate distortions and even the outright forgeries of many unscrupulous evolutionists who seek to convince us that yet another huge falsehood is the truth.
“Why doesn’t the scientific community abandon Darwin’s failed hypotheses? Simple: The Jewish-dominated media and educational establishment are determined that, like unconditional support of Israel, Holocaust mythology, hate laws, and ‘civil rights’ favouritism, there will be no end to the relentless force-feeding of evolution. Belief in evolution is a prerequisite for Jewish supremacism’s new-world order.” Reverend Ted Pike, researcher, 16th May 2011
There are undoubtedly some genuine, well-meaning scientists who firmly believe in the evolutionary model but they have been duped just as the rest of us, by the deliberate subterfuge of those who are determined to perpetuate a lie. Or could they simply be victims of the Hegelian trap of mainstream religion-based creation versus evolution, believing as they do in the more ‘plausible’, scientific alternative?
Whatever the answer to that particular poser may be, it seems clear to me that macro-evolution is a huge deception, a pseudo-science and just one of many in a long list of deceptions emitting from the forces of evil, that we are forced to endure on a daily basis.