Steam Trains From Great Britain and Beyond

The origin of man

Any person who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came in existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is the "creation", the idea that all living things came into existence as a result of intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution", which asserts that the life Things are not the products of intelligent design, but fortuitous and natural processes.
For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has been widely supported by the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionary concepts. Therefore, between the two explanations the creation and evolution, most people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Therefore, they believe the evolution theory supported by the findings of observational science, while creation is seen as a belief based on faith. In fact, however, scientific results do not support the theory of evolution. The results of the last two decades, in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science as paleontology, biochemistry, genetics populations, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects can not explain life, as suggested by the theory evolution.

Origin of Man

Darwin put forward his claim that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of the path of Darwin have tried to substantiate this assertion. But despite all the research that has been made, the claim of "human evolution" has not been supported by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the field of fossils.
The man in the street is mostly unaware of this fact, and think application of human evolution is supported by much evidence solid. The reason for this misconception is that the subject is often discussed in the media and presented as a fact. But real experts are aware that there is no scientific basis for the claim of evolution human. David Pilbeam, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard University, said:
If you made a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we had surely say that "forget it, there is not enough to continue." ((Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.))
And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, made this comment:
As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the audacity to tell us that there has "no doubt" how man originated. If only they had evidence …(( William R. Fix, hawkers Bone, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.))

This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," begins the family tree rights with a group of monkeys that were claimed to constitute a separate genus, Australopithecus. Depending on demand, Australopithecus have gradually walk upright, his brain grew, and he went through a series of steps until it reaches the present state of human (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the assertion that all sorts of intermediate forms exist, there a barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes. In addition, it was revealed that the species which are presented Both are in fact the ancestors of contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important promoters of the theory developments in the twentieth century, contends in his book A long argument "particularly puzzle [history] as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, it is extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation. "((" Could science be terminated by the belief of scientists that they have final answers or by society's reluctance to pay the bills? "Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20.))

But what is the basis of the theory of human evolution put forward by evolutionists? Is the existence the abundance of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species monkeys have lived, and most of them have disappeared. Today, only 120 species live on Earth. The approximately 6,000 species of monkeys, whose Most are extinct, constitute a precious resource for the evolutionists.
On the other hand, there are considerable differences in the composition anatomy of different human races. In addition, the differences were even greater between prehistoric races, because time has passed the human races have to some extent mixed with each other and assimilate. Nevertheless, significant differences were seen between different groups population living in the world today, as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuit, indigenous Australians, and many others.
There is no evidence to show that the fossil hominid known by paleontologists of the evolution does belong to different species of monkeys or vanished races of man. In other words, no example of a transitional form between mankind and the great apes has been found.
After these explanations, we will now examine the hypothesis of human evolution together.
The Imagination Tree Family of Man
The Darwinist claim contends that modern man has evolved from a kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 4 to 5 million years, it is asserted that there were certain forms of "transitional" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecines (any of various forms of the genus Australopithecus)
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged "Australopithecus" which means "southern ape". Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that became extinct, is found in various forms. Some they are larger and strongly built (solid), while others are smaller and delicate (gracile).
Evolutionists classify the stage next human evolution that the genus Homo, which is "man". The argument of evolution, living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of today is the kind Homo sapiens, have formed the last stage of the evolution of the genus Homo.
Fossils like "Java Man", "Peking Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time to time and are in the evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one the four groups mentioned above. Each of these groups is also taken to the branch species and subspecies, as appropriate.
Some have suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, should be excluded from the family tree of human imagination after it became that they were ordinary apes.
By emphasizing the links in the chain of "Australopithecus> Homo habilis Homo> erectus> Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the other. However, the recent findings paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different regions of the world in the same time. In addition, some of those men classified as Homo erectus probably lived until very recently. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia ", it has been reported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had" mean ages 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years, and this [raise "s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) in Southeast Asia "
In addition, neandarthalensis Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils that evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of human, in fact, belong either to different human races, or other species of great apes.
While fossils are human beings and those monkeys? it is possible for each to be considered a transitional form? To find the answers, let's take a look at each category.

Australopithecus: A species of monkey
The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape" as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures appeared in Africa about 4 million years, and lived up to 1 million years. There are a number of different species among astralopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After A. This is Africanus and A. robustus, which has relatively larger bones. As A. boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a subspecies of A. Robustus.
All great ape species are extinct Australopithecus resembling apes today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than chimpanzees today. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet they used to climbing trees, like chimpanzees today, and their feet are built to take to take on the branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Many other features, such as details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp teeth molar, mandibular structure, their long arms and short legs, constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from monkeys today.
However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.
This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that was held by such paleoanthropologists Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have made a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of this argument. Extensive research carried on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, has shown that these creatures did not walk upright in a humane manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five experts to the conclusion that the australopithecines were only one kind monkeys common and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself. Similarly, Charles E. Oxnard, which is another evolutionary famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecus to that of modern orang-utans.
In short, Australopithecus have no link with humans and they are a species of extinct ape.

Homo habilis: The monkey was presented as the man
The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the assertion that these creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulties for evolutionists paleoanthropologists. The reason is that according to the schema evolution imaginary, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus name Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a species of man and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee monkey like, Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from modern man, is beyond question, even according to evolutionary theory. Therefore, "Links" is "transitional forms" are required. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.
The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in 1960 by Leakey, a family of "fossil hunters." According to Leakey, the new species, which they classified as Homo habilis had a cranial capacity is relatively large, the ability to walk upright and use the stone and wooden tools. Therefore, it could be the ancestor of man.
new fossils of the same species discovered in the 1980 has been completely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on these newly found fossil, said that Homo habilis (which means "skillful man", who is the man capable of using tools) should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape", because Homo habilis had a lot of features in common with the australopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and a structural skeleton of Australopithecus ape like. Her fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Their jaw is very similar to the great apes of today. Their 600 cc average cranial capacity is also an indication that they were the big monkeys. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a separate species by some evolutionists, was in reality a species monkey like all other australopithecines.
Research conducted in the years since Wood and Brace work has shown that Homo habilis was indeed no different from Australopithecus. The skull and skeletal fossils OH62 by Tim White showed that this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms and short legs which enabled them to climb the trees like modern apes do.
The detailed analysis conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words, "the man" at all, but rather unequivocally a monkey. Speaking of her analysis on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;
Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, the development models Dental gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans.
In the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion, by a completely different method. This method was based on comparative analysis of the semicircular canals of the inner ear of humans and monkeys provided to maintain the balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:
Among the fossil hominids the first species to demonstrate morphology of modern humans is Homo erectus. In contrast, the dimensions of the semicircular canal in skulls from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus And Paranthropus resemble those of extant great apes.
Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a specimen of Homo habilis, namely Stw 53, and found that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines. "This means that Homo habilis specimen was more apelike than the species Australopithecus. Thus, they concluded that "Stw 53 represents a somewhat intermediate between the morphologies seen in Australopithecus and Homo erectus.
This has led to two important results:
1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, human knowledge, but to that of Australopithecus ape say.
2. Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked bent forward that is to say they had the skeleton of a monkey. They have no relationship to man.

Homo rudolfensis: The face of harm Registration
Homo rudolfensis term is the name given to a fragment of some fossils unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil has been named Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.
Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull named "KNM-ER 1470," he said, which was 2.8 million years, the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey, this creature, who had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus with a face similar to that of humans today, was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. However, after a short time, we realized that the human face-like KNM-ER 1470 skull, which appears frequently on the covers scientific journals and science magazines has been the result of improper assembly of the skull fragments, which may have been intentional. Professor Tim Bromage, which conducts studies on the anatomy of the face of the man, has this to light by using computer simulation in 1992:
When it [KNM-ER 1470] was reconstructed, the face has been installed on the skull in a nearly vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern man. But recent studies show that the anatomical relationships in life's face must have jutted out considerably, creating an appearance simian a bit like the faces of Australopithecus.
The evolutionary paleoanthropologist JE Cronin states the following on the question
… its relatively Building robust, flattened naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on time), juga canines and molars strong large (as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with the members of the taxon A. africanus.
C. Loring Brace University of Michigan reached the same conclusion. Following the analysis made it on the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470, he stated that "the size of the mouth and the expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained full Australopithecus companies face and teeth. "
Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins, who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintains that this creature should not be considered a member of Homo-ie, as a human species, but must instead be placed in the genus Australopithecus.
In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis which are presented as links transition between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, are entirely imaginary. It was confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of monkeys.
This fact was also established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in the journal Science. Wood and Collard explained that Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that fossils assigned to these categories should be assigned to the genus Australopithecus:
More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of absolute brain size, inferences about the ability of language and the main function, and retrodiction about their ability to shape stone tools. With few exceptions, the definition and use of gender in human evolution, and the demarcation of Homo, have been treated as if they are not problematic. But … data Recent, new interpretations of existing evidence, and the limits of record paleoanthropological invalidate existing criteria for allocation taxa to Homo.
… In practice species of hominid fossils attributed to Homo on the basis of one or more of four criteria. … It is now clear, however, none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic because the cranial capacity Absolute is a questionable biological significance. Similarly, there is compelling evidence that language function can not be reliably inferred from the appearance macroscopic brain, and elements related to the language of the brain are not as localized as earlier studies have suggested …
… In other words, with the hypodigm H. H. habilis rudolfensis assigned to the genus Homo is not a genre well. Thus, H. H. habilis rudolfensis (Or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "Homo") should be removed from Homo. The obvious solution is taxonomically which is to transfer one or two taxa in one of the types of early hominids existing situation is not without problems, but we recommend that yet, the two H. H. habilis rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.
The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion that we have maintained here: "Primitive human ancestors" do not exist in history. The creatures who are accused of being great apes are in fact must be attributed to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these major extinct apes and Homo, ie, human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record.

Homo erectus and later: beings human
According to the scheme proposed by evolutionists fanciful, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: Homo erectus first then so-called "primitive man" Homo sapiens and Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). But all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is not greater than the difference between Inuit and an African or a pygmy and a European.
Consider first Homo erectus, which is called the most primitive species rights. As its name implies, Homo erectus "means" man who walks upright ". Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier adding the qualification "erectness" because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in one of australopithecines or so-called Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the post-cranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus.

The main reason why Homo erectus evolutionists define as "primitive", is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average of modern humans, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people today live in the world that have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for example) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for example).
It is a common agreement on the facts that the differences in cranial capacity does not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or capabilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than its volume.
The fossil Homo erectus have been known throughout the world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, over time we realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking Man consists of some plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java Man is "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone was found yards away and there is 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 Homo erectus have been included in a second species called Homo ergaster "by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils in the classification of Homo erectus)
The most famous specimens of Homo erectus found in Africa is the fossil of Homo erectus Narikotome "or the" Turkana Boy that was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12 year old boy, who was 1.83 m high in adolescence. The vertical structure of the skeleton of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of modern man. "((Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post November 19, 1984.))
As regards the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it, because "it looked so like a Neanderthal. "((ibid.)) As we shall see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
Even the United States as evolutionist Richard Leakey differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more that the variance in race
One also differences in the shape of the skull in the degree of sagging of the face, the robustness of the eyebrows, etc.. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern man. These biological variations arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.
Professor William Laughlin of the University Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations and Inuit people living on the Aleutian Islands, and noticed that these people were extremely similar Homo erectus. The conclusion arrived at Laughlin, is that all these different races are in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man).
When one considers the great differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to one species Homo sapiens, it seems justified to conclude that the Peking [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.
It is now a fact more pronounced in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens to be considered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions on this issue and the result a seminar on the subject in 2000 were summarized as follows:
Most participants at the Senckenberg conference got resulted in a heated debate on the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne University of Canberra and colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo about 2 million years to today, were very variable widespread species, Homo sapiens, no natural breaks or subdivisions. The theme of the conference, Homo erectus did not exist.
The conclusion by the scientists defending the theory above can be summarized as "Homo erectus is a species of 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 monkeys that preceded Homo erectus in 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 clearer indication of their being created.
Yet acknowledging this fact is completely contrary to the philosophy and ideology of dogmatic evolutionists. Consequently, they try to portray Homo erectus, a human race really, as a creature half-ape. In their reconstructions Homo erectus, they ape-like characteristics make tenacity. On the other hand, with similar methods of drawing, they humanize the apes as Australopithecus or Homo habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings human and bridge the gap between these two different classes of life.

Neanderthals
Neanderthals were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, which have disappeared or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeleton is 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 species "Primitive", but all results indicate that they were no different from a "robust" a man walking in the street today. A leading authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New Mexico, wrote:
Detailed comparisons 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.
Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a subspecies of modern man and call Neandertalensis Homo "sapiens". The results show that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities with Homo sapiens sapiens living during the same period. To say precisely, Neanderthals are "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time.

Homo sapiens archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis and man Cro-Magnon
Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists not much to say about these fossils, as there are only very slight differences between them and modern man. Some researchers claim well as representatives of this race are still alive today, and the point of indigenous Australians as an example. As Homo sapiens (archaic) The native Australians also have thick eyebrows prominent structure inward-inclined mandibular, and cranial capacity slightly smaller.
The group called Homo heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as the archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two different terms are used to define the human race is similar disagreement among evolutionists. All the fossils included in the classification Homo heidelbergensis suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500,000 and 740,000 years, even there, first in England then Spain.
It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. It has a domed skull and a wide forehead. His skull is 1600 cc above average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protuberance at the back which characteristic of the Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
Although the Cro-Magnon is considered a European race, the structure and volume of the skull of Cro-Magnon closely resemble those of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Based on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other findings paleoanthropological showed that the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the groundwork for the races today.
As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species. They were different from humans who have lived in the past and is assimilated and mixed with other races, or became extinct and disappeared history.

The species living in the same age as their ancestors
What we have studied to date is a clear picture: The scenario of "human evolution" is a complete fiction. For such a tree to represent the truth, evolution graduated from ape to man must have taken place and a fossil of this process should be found. In fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. skeletal structures, the cranial capacity, and criteria such as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes.
Another important finding that may prove to be no relationship between these different tree species is that species are presented as the ancestors of others, actually lived at the same time. If, as evolutionists claim, Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which, in turn, transformed into Homo erectus, the periods when they resided must necessarily have followed others. However, there is no chronological order as to see in the fossil record.
Estimates of evolutionists, Australopithecus lived from 4 million to 1 million years ago. Creatures classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, are believed to have lived up to 1.7 to 1.9 million years previously. Homo rudolfensis, which would have been more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as 2.5 to 2.8 million years! That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, which is presumed to have been the "ancestor". On the other hand, the age of Homo erectus goes as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years, which means that Homo erectus appeared on land under the same time as his so-called Homo habilis ancestors.
Alan Walker confirms this fact by saying that "there is evidence of East Africa the end of the small surviving individuals that were contemporaneous first with H. Australopithecus habilis, Homo erectus, then with. "((Alan Walker, Science, Vol 207, 1980, p. 1103.))
Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus almost side by side in the region Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in the Bed II layer.
There is certainly no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, who was a paleontologist Harvard University, said the impasse facing the evolution, although he was himself an evolutionist:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), although no from another? In addition, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.
When we pass from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, we again see that there is no family tree to talk. There is evidence showing that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens Archaic continued to live for 27,000 years and even more recently than 10,000 years before our era. In the Kow Swamp in Australia, skulls 13,000 years, Homo erectus were discovered. On the island of Java, Homo erectus remains were found that are 27,000 years old.

History Secret of Homo Sapiens
The most interesting and significant that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory the past history of unexpectedly modern man. paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens who looked exactly like we lived as long as 1 million years.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist, who discovered first results on this subject. In 1932, the Kanjera area around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Pleistocene medium and were no different from modern man. But the Middle Pleistocene has been millions of years. Since these discoveries is the tree of evolution backward, they have been rejected by some paleoanthropologists evolutionists. Yet Leakey always maintained that its estimates are correct.
Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil discovered Spain in 1995 revealed a very remarkable that the history of Homo sapiens was much older than had been supported. The fossil in question was discovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three paleoanthropologists Spanish University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of a 11 year old boy who looked exactly like the man modern. Yet he had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in detail in its December 1997 to magazine.
This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the excavation Gran Dolina. Ferreras said:
We expected something big, something large, something inflated, you know, something primitive. Our expectation of a boy 800,000 years, was something like Turkana Boy. And we found a thoroughly modern face …. For me it's more spectacular, these are the kind of things you shake it. Find something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and that's okay. But the most dramatic 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. It would be very surprising. We do not expect cassettes and cassette recorders in the Pleistocene. Find modern face 800,000 years ago, the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw.
The fossil has highlighted the fact that history of Homo sapiens has been extended back to 800,000 years. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered decided that the fossil belonged to another species, because, according to the tree of evolution, Homo sapiens has not lived 800,000 years. Therefore, they formed a kind called Homo antecessor imaginary "and included the Atapuerca skull under this classification.

1.7 million Hut Years
There were many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the 1970s at the beginning of the Olduvai Gorge. Here in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered Australopithecus Homo habilis and Homo erectus species coexisted in 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 building, which is still used in parts of Africa, can not have been built by Homo sapiens! Thus, according to results Leakey, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years. This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory which claims that modern humans evolved from monkey species such as Australopithecus.

Traces of human modern, 3.6 million years!
Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern humans back to 1.7 million years. One of these important discoveries is the fingerprint found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These fingerprints were found in a layer which was calculated at 3.6 million years, and more importantly, they were not different from the impression that modern man does leave.
The traces found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:
Make no mistake … They are like modern human footprints. If you remain in the sand on a beach in California today, and a four year old was asked what he was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. It would not be able to tell from a hundred other prints on the beach, no more than you. ((Donald C. Johanson & MA Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Mankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.))
After examining footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of Northern California made the following comments:
The arch is raised, the smallest one had a more me great arch and big toe is large and aligned with the second toe … The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms. ((Science News, Vol 115, 1979, p. 196-197.))
Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again they should be accepted as marks of a human being, and also a modern man Homo (sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also examined fingerprints wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them … In all morphological characteristics visible, the feet of those who made tracks are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.
impartial examinations footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger. They were certainly Modern as we are.
This situation that the Laetoli footprints at the center of discussion for years. Evolutionists desperately paleoanthropologists tried to find an explanation, because it was difficult for them to accept the fact that modern man was walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During the 1990s, as follows: "explanation" started to take shape: The evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in a 1990 article:
In sum, the 3.5-million-year mark on the face of Laetoli site G resemble those usually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the fingerprint G are not known to be old, one could easily conclude that there had been made by a member of our genus Homo … In any case, we should gap the assumption that the Laetoli footprints loose were made by type of Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis.
To put it briefly, these footprints that were at 3.6 million years could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australopithecus layer was 3.6 million years in which volcanic traces have been found. The drawings have been attributed to Australopithecus only on the assumption that humans could not have lived so long.
These interpretations Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory is not based on scientific data, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast doubt on the theory being either ignored or distorted to support the theory.
In short, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.

The Impasse of bipedal evolution
Besides the fossils we have treated so far, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with how to walk.
Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion not seen in other mammalian species. Some other animals are limited capacity move when they stand on their hind legs. Animals such as bears and monkeys can move this way only rarely, as when they want to reach a food source, and even then only for a short period. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours.
Well, then, has evolved from the quadrupedal gait of bipedal apes, as evolutionists claim?
Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism has never taken place, it is not possible for her to have done. First, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. How monkeys move is much easier, faster and more efficient than the aftermath of man biped. Man can neither move by jumping from tree to tree without descending to the ground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km / h, as a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walked on two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, it is one of the most protection of all species in nature in terms of movement and defense. The logic of the theory of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride, humans should instead have evolved to become a quadruped.
Another impasse of the application development is that bipedalism does not serve the development "progressive" model of Darwinism. This model, which is the basis of evolution, it must there is a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, the computerized search he conducted in 1996, the British paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright, or on all fours. ((Ruth Henke, Aufrecht "aus den Baumen", Focus, Vol 39, 1996, p. 178.)).
A type of stride between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. Therefore a half-bipedal being can not exist.
The huge gap between man and the monkey is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other questions remain unexplained, such as the brain's ability, the ability to speak, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this issue:
Four of mysteries most remarkable on humans are: 1) why did they walk on two legs? 2) Why have they lost their fur? 3) Why have they developed such large brains? 4) Why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) "We still do not know" 2) "We still do not know"; 3) "We do not know yet" 4) "We do not know yet." The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the responses.

Evolution: faith unscientific
Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous scientists and respected in the United Kingdom. For years he studied the fossil and conducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on the evolution can be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on fossils included in the scenario of human evolution, however, it is concluded that there is no truth to the tree of the family is emphasized.
Zuckerman also advanced an interesting idea of the spectrum "of science, ranging from those that considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman spectrum, the more "scientific", that is concrete according to data fields are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and social sciences. At the other end of the spectrum, which is part most be regarded as "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception, concepts such as telepathy and the" sixth sense " and finally "human evolution". Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:
We then move to the right of the register of objective truth in these fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of the fossil history of man, where the faithful anything is possible – and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.
Robert Locke, editor Discovery of Archaeology, a major book on the origins of man, wrote in this newspaper, "The search for ancestors of man gives more heat than light, "quoting the confession of the famous evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim White:
We are all frustrated by "all issues that we have not been able to respond. "
Locke article reviews the deadlock of the theory of evolution the origins of man and unfounded propaganda about this subject:
Perhaps no area of science is more controversial than Searching for the origins of man. Elite paleontologists disagree over the greatest lines of the family tree of man. new branches grow with great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.
The same fact has been recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of the journal Nature well known. In his book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence of the evolution of man "Between about 10 and 5 million years-several thousand generations of living creatures can be mounted in a small box." He concludes that the classical theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the Indeed, in the form of agreement with the prejudices of man "and he adds:
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as Bedtime Story amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
What is the reason why so many scientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why did they try so hard to keep their theory alive at the cost of having to admit countless conflicts and reject the evidence they found?
The only answer is their fear that they will face in case of abandonment of the theory of evolution. The fact that they will face when they leave evolution is that God created man. However, Considering the assumptions they have and the materialist philosophy that believe in creation is a concept unacceptable to the evolutionists.
For this reason, they are wrong, and in the world, using media with which they cooperate. If they can not find the fossils needed, they were producing them either tabular imaginary or fictitious models and try give the impression that there is indeed evidence of the increased fossils. A portion of the mass media who share their views too materialistic attempt to mislead the public and create the history of evolution in the subconscious of people.
No matter how hard they try, the truth is obvious: the man came into existence not by an evolutionary process, but by God's creation. Therefore, it is responsible to him.

Please see this book to learn more about the origin of living things:
Darwinism refuted (Book):
PDF file format:
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=85&Format=pdf

Word file format:
http://api.fmanager.net/api_v1/xmlapi.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&with=mod=file, id = 13732

Another useful book and website in different languages:
Lie of Evolution (Book):
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=462&Format=pdf
Website:
www.evolutiondeceit.com

Darwin's Imagination
The person who has advanced the theory of evolution as it is defended today, is an English amateur naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin.
Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. It took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. His interest led him to voluntarily join an expedition aboard a ship named HMS Beagle, which left England in 1832 and traveled through different regions of the world for five years. Young Darwin was very impressed by the life of various species, especially by some finches he saw in the Galapagos Islands. He believed that changes in their beaks have been caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this in mind, it was assumed that the origin of life and resident species the concept of "adaptation to the environment." Darwin cons that God created different living species separately, suggesting that they are rather from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other due to natural conditions.
hypothesis Darwin was not based on a scientific discovery or experiment; time, however, he has transformed into a pretentious theory, with the support and encouragement he has received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. The idea was that individuals who had adapted to habitat in the best way to transfer their skills to future generations, and these advantageous qualities accumulated over time and the individual transformed into a species entirely different from his ancestors. (The origin of these "advantageous qualities" was unknown at the time.) According to Darwin, man was the result of the more developed this mechanism imagination.
Darwin called this process "evolution by selection natural ". He thought he had found the origin of species": the origin of species was another species. He has published these views in his book The Origin of Species by means of natural selection in 1859.
Darwin was well aware that his theory against to many problems. He admitted them in his book in the chapter "Difficulties of the theory. These difficulties mainly composed the study of fossils, complex organs of living creatures could be explained by chance (eg the eye), and instincts living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties will be overcome by new discoveries, and yet it does not prevent him from coming with a number of explanations for some very poor. The American physicist Lipson commented on "difficulties" of Darwin:
On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less secure than himself, he is often portrayed to be, chapter entitled "Difficulties of the theory, for example, shows a lot of self doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye could have arisen. ((HS Lipson, "View of a physicist" theory of Darwin, trends in the evolution of plants, Vol 2, No 1, 1988, p. 6.))
While developing his theory, Darwin was impressed by biologists Evolutionists much the last, and first by the French biologist, Lamarck. According to Lamarck, living beings took on the features they have acquired during their lifetime of a generation to another and thus evolved. For instance, giraffes evolved from animals like the antelope's neck extending increasingly down from generation to generation, as they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food. Darwin and the theory used to "pass acquired traits" proposed by Lamarck as the factor that has changed the living beings.
But both Darwin and Lamarck was wrong, because in their time, life could not be studied with a very primitive technology at a very inadequate. science such as genetics and biochemistry did not exist even in name. Their theories have had to depend entirely on their powers of imagination.
While the echoes of Darwin's book reverberated, an Austrian botanist named Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of heredity in 1865. Not heard a lot about the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. A little Later, the structure of genes and chromosomes was discovered. The discovery in the 1950s, the structure of the DNA molecule that integrates genetic information threw the theory of evolution in a major crisis. The reason is the incredible complexity of life and nullity mechanisms of evolution proposed by Darwin.
These developments should have led to Darwin's theory is relegated the dustbin of history. However, it was not because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and raising the theory to a scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only when we realize that behind the theory was ideological intentions rather that concerns scientists.

Links:
Videos
THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245

The collapse of atheism:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1244

THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE:
http://harunyahya.com/m_video_creation_universe.php

The miracle of human creation:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1249

Books

The collapse of the theory of evolution in 20 questions:
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Disasters Darwinism brought to humanity:
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=74&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
Millions of evidence that refute Darwinism
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=4813&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
A definitive answer to the evolutionist propaganda:
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=210&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
How Fossils reversed the trend:
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=4813&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Religion Of Darwinism
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=1959&Format=rtf
=*=*=*=*=
Not by chance:
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=1815&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
A Final Reply evolutionist propaganda
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=210&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Why Darwinism is incompatible with the Koran
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=208&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
Darwinism disasters brought humanity
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=74&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
Bloody fascist ideology of Darwinism
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=225&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Dark Spell of Darwinism
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=2182&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Golden Age
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=1462&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=

=* FOR ANY HELP FEEL FREE TO ME E-MAIL ON *=
smiling4ever222@hotmail.com

About the Author

492 North British Locomotive Plaque 1909 For Sale On eBay.wmv

Photographic Prints of Superheater locomotive of the 4-6-2 type from Mary Evans £10.00 10×8 Print, Superheater locomotive of the 4-6-2 type. Superheater locomotive of the 4-6-2 type Date . Chosen by Mary Evans. Printed on 254x203mm Fuji Crystal Archive paper for stable image permanence and brilliant colour reproduction with smooth tones, enhanced sharpness, and excellent definition. This item is shipped from our UK lab….

Photographic Prints of Locomotive Electro-turbo-loco from Mary Evans £10.00 10×8 Print, Locomotive Electro-turbo-loco. Locomotive Electro-turbo-loco Date . Chosen by Mary Evans. Printed on 254x203mm Fuji Crystal Archive paper for stable image permanence and brilliant colour reproduction with smooth tones, enhanced sharpness, and excellent definition. This item is shipped from our UK lab….

Photographic Prints of Locomotive with Schmidt superheater from Mary Evans £10.00 10×8 Print, Locomotive with Schmidt superheater. Locomotive with Schmidt superheater of the 4-8-2 type Date . Chosen by Mary Evans. Printed on 254x203mm Fuji Crystal Archive paper for stable image permanence and brilliant colour reproduction with smooth tones, enhanced sharpness, and excellent definition. This item is shipped from our UK lab….

Jigsaw Puzzles of North Staffordshire Railway steam Locomotive No 14 and its tender c1875 from Heritage-Images Photo Jigsaw, North Staffordshire Railway steam Locomotive No 14 and its tender c1875. North Staffordshire Railway steam Locomotive No 14 and its tender c1875. This 2-4-0 locomotive, pictured with driver and fireman on the footplate, was built by Dubs a Co of Glasgow and delivered in 1875. The North Staffordshire Railway opened in 1845, operating until 1923 when it was amalgamated into the London,…

Giants of Steam: Story of the North British Locomotive Co.Ltd.and Its Constituent Companies £24.99 192pp, illustrated in b&w with photos, drawings and rosters plus plenty of text…

Locomotive Apprentice: At the North British Locomotive Company £5.95 …

Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive Company Ltd Glasgow …