bismi11.gif (1074 bytes)

Subjective and Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of the Evolutionists

Fossil records constitute the primary source for the evolutionists who look for some evidences for the theory of evolution. The fossil records contain the remains of former men. When examined objectively and attentively, it is seen that the fossil records are not in favor of the evolutionary theory, but on the contrary they are against to the assertions of the evolutionists. However, since these fossils are incorrectly portrayed by the evolutionists and reflected to public opinion with prejudices, many people believe that the fossil records actually verify the theory of evolution.

The evolutionists benefit mostly from the fact that the findings of fossil records can be open to discussion. The fossils are usually not sufficient to make a sound analysis. Actually, they are comprised of incomplete and fragmented bone pieces. This is the reason why it is so easy to distort the available data and use them in the desired way.

The theory of evolution is turned into a life style, a mode of thinking and even an ideology rather than a theory by its followers, and within its scope, no need is felt to avoid from distorting the data or even making up more serious forgeries. An extremist advocate of the evolutionary ideology, for instance, does not hesitate to make distortion to be able to interpret each finding of the fossil records in favor of the theory of evolution.

David Pilbeam, who is an anthropologist in Harvard University explains the influence of the ideological expectations on interpreting fossil records as follows:

"Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data… We are unaware of many of our assumptions." [1]

The fact that fossil records are open to all kinds of interpretations, raises doubt on the reliability of even the whole science of paleoanthropology which is mostly under disposition of the evolutionists. Pilbeam described how subjective the evolutionists were while interpreting the fossils and how they held certain prejudices and expectations:

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 somber than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us." [2]

Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleonthropologist of Birmingham University in England states how ideological expectations shape the way of thinking:

"…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory 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." [3]

The evolutionists illustrate the form of nose, lips, hair, eyebrows, which do not leave any fossil traces, in their pictures and reconstructions. They do not only draw the physical appearances of these false beings, but prepare detailed images of their social life; walking with their families, hunting, or in any other phase of their -would be- ordinary lives. People coming across with these professionally drawn half man-half ape beings in the books, or periodicals may be convinced that ape-like men lived, and the contemporary man evolved through such process. However these kinds of drawings and pictures are only deceits.

Do the 'Ancestor of Man' Drawings Reflect Truth?

yahya4a.jpg (24244 bytes)

Since fossil records are usually disordered and incomplete, the evaluation based on them would be totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on the fossil remains, are treated in a speculative way just to validate the evolutionary thesis. Since people are highly affected by visual information, the aim is to make them believe that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

Just for this reason, the reconstructions of fossils are always designed to meet the needs of the evolution theory. Evolutionist researchers often set out from a single tooth, a mandibular fragment or even a tiny bone of the arm, and draw human-like imaginary creatures, then present these to the public opinion as a link of the evolution of man. These drawings and reconstructions have indeed played an important role in the visualization of the "primitive man" image in the minds of people.

Reconstructions based on remains of bones can only reveal the general characteristics of the object. Yet, the real designating details are soft tissues that quickly vanish in time. Therefore, with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawing or model becomes totally dependent on the imagination of the person constructing it. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University, explains the situation as below:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous under-taking. 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 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. [4]

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "pompous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of such a forgery.

Another example to these kinds of frauds is the Haeckel's case. The drawings of Haeckel are still presented by evolutionists in numerous books although Haeckel himself interestingly confessed this deceit:

To cut short this unsavory dispute, I begin at my numerous drawings of embryos (perhaps six or eight percent) are in a sense falsified - all those, namely, for which the present material of observation is so incomplete of insufficient as to compel us, when we come to prepare a continuous chain of the evolutionary stages, to fill up the gaps by hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing links by comparative syntheses… After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the change of 'forgery', for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed. [5]

The biased interpretation of fossils or fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions out of these, may be an indication of how frequently the evolutionists use tricks. Yet, these can be considered as innocent when compared to the concrete forgeries encountered in the evolution history.


1. David Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Nature, June, 1978, p.40.

2. Ibid., pp. 44-45.

3. Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1971, p. 64.

4. Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1971, p. 19.

5. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p. 204.

yahya0b.gif (3003 bytes)

Harun Yahya

28 November 1998.

[He is a well known writer from Istanbul who has written numerous books and articles on Islam, which includes the marvels of Allah's creation, the evolution theory, and politics. His articles have been published, not only in Turkey, but in other countries as well. His study aims to convey the message of the Qur'an, and to encourage people to think on issues such as the existence and the unity of God, and the Hereafter.]

index1.gif (3117 bytes)bicnews1.gif (3668 bytes)archives1.gif (3407 bytes)abutalut1.gif (2469 bytes)