Not faked, Airguard, but rather simply missenterpreted (perhaps by blind belief that evolutionary theory must be true in total).
The supposed hominids' (creatures in-between ape and human that evolution supporters believe used to exist) bones and skull records used by scientists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though those who support evolutionary theory present them as if they were. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids (put forth as supposed “transitional” species) are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. The final three supposed hominids originally put forth as evidence of transitional evidence are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between. Of these last three, we have the following:
- HOMO ERECTUS: #10 was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's. One Homo Erectus find, called Peking Man, was based on but one tooth. "Davidson Black...became convinced that it (the one tooth) was a human tooth...He then confidently announced a new genus of man."
- NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.
- CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.
Interestingly, when new evidence is found that debunks some cherished "fact" of evolutionary theory, you never hear about it in the popular press, and it receives little more than a footnote in the supposedly objective scientific jounals. You never hear of the original discoverer publishing a retraction, as it were. And they don't bother to revise the text books, either.
Answer me this simple question: Why do you (whoever you are) believe in the theory of evolution? Have you seen it first hand? Have you witnessed the first instance of a new species, and seen its completely new feature (i.e. wings on a cow, or a snake with eyes on its tail) passed on to its progeny? Have you even examined first hand the fossil remains, as well as all the information on how and where they were found? Finally, have you actually looked at what the alternate explanations for such discoveries might be, or have you simply taken the intellectually lazy approached and taken someone else’s word for it? Face it. You have accepted without question the teachings of ancient and not so ancient texts, written by the high priests and priestesses of a religion, that of evolutionism. As I said, your belief is based on faith as much as Storch’s.
Some parts of the greater grouping of scientific hypothesis known collectively as “evolution” are undeniable, such as natural selection improving the survival process of a species. This goes on today, and its examples are everywhere. However, the origins of life, and the natural evolution of simple organisms to complex through the process of beneficial mutation are not. They are instead guesses based on suppositions based on pure conjecture.
