An article titled “Two new views on monogamy” appeared in the 14 August, 2004, edition of the Turkish magazine Hurriyet Bilim. The article dealt with an interview conducted with Dr. Robert Martin, an anthropologist from the Field Museum of Natural History, at Chicago. Two evolutionist claims of Martin’s set out in the article, and our response to them are briefly set out below.
An article titled “Two new views on monogamy” appeared in the 14 August, 2004, edition of the Turkish magazine Hurriyet Bilim. The article dealt with an interview conducted with Dr. Robert Martin, an anthropologist from the Field Museum of Natural History, at Chicago. Two evolutionist claims of Martin’s set out in the article, and our response to them are briefly set out below.
1. Martin claims that Neanderthals are a separate species
Neanderthals are representatives of a human race that lived in Europe, Asia and the Middle East between 200,000 and 30,000 years ago, and which is now extinct. In the early 1900s, evolutionists distorted various Neanderthal anatomical features in order to prove the scenario of humans being descended from ape-like creatures, and tried to present them as “primitive” hominids. Martin now reveals that he subscribes to this viewpoint and claims that Neanderthals are a separate species to modern-day human beings. However, this claim of Martin’s does not reflect even the views of a significant majority of evolutionists. That is because new findings obtained from archaeological excavations have revealed that the Neanderthals does not represent a separate species from human beings, and that in fact, from the anatomical and cultural points of view, Neanderthals lacked nothing found in present-day man. For further information on this subject, see:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_4_neanderthal.php
2. Martin is mistaken in claiming that the Toumai skull belongs to a missing link
In response to a question posed during the interview, Martin states that a 7-million-year-old skull (the Toumai skull) was recently discovered in Chad and that this may represent a missing link. Here there is a striking inconsistency on Martin’s part. The fossil to which he refers does not support the myth of the missing link and, quite the contrary, demonstrates its invalidity for all to see, to such an extent in fact that in the face of this picture even evolutionist authorities have issued statements admitting that the Toumai skull puts paid to the idea of the missing link. The paleontologist Henry Gee, for instance, says the following in an article concerning this fossil published in The Guardian:
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a “missing link” is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. (Henry Gee, “Face of Yesterday,” The Guardian, July 11, 2002)
It is clear that a fossil, which totally undermines the missing link claim, cannot be portrayed as backing up this claim. If it is, then the claim in question must be mistaken. Hurriyet Bilim magazine must not put a premium on erroneous claims merely because they are in favor of Darwinism. We call on the magazine management to abandon its blind support for Darwinism.
Paleoanthropological findings offer absolutely no support for the scenario of human evolution; on the contrary, they totally invalidate it. Fossil discoveries in recent years have revealed that evolutionists’ so-called family tree consists of an unscientific supposition based totally on prejudice and imagination. For more information see:
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php
