The claim that 'Australopithecus is the ancestor of man' is fraudulent
Harun Yahya1084
18 February, 2018
The subject of human evolution is of vital importance to Darwinists. The idea they have tried for years to indoctrinate people with is the lie that man is a supposed evolved animal. They strive with all their power to maintain this lie, and attempt to inculcate the idea that human beings have supposed animal ancestors in even the most unrelated subjects. The deceptions to which they resort on this matter are breathtaking. Even the fossil finds that generally have nothing to do with it are set in such a way as to suggest they are human beings. So much so that Darwinists produced Nebraska Man FROM A SINGLE FOSSIL TOOTH, which would later emerge to belong to a wild pig, and they had no qualms about depicting this entity’s social life together with its family. One of the most significant examples of these astonishing endeavors is their long-time claim that Australopithecus is the ape-like ancestor of man.
Australopithecus is an extinct species of ape. The name means "Southern ape," and Darwinists seek to depict it as the first ape-like forebear of human beings. As with all other examples, since this species of ape is extinct evolutionists have used it as a tool for speculation. But as with all other examples, the scenarios that Darwinists produce regarding Australopithecus are again based on deception.
Australopithecus is thought to have first appeared in Africa 4 million years ago and to have survived until 1 million years ago. The fact that needs to be made clear here is that all Australopithecines are extinct apes resembling their modern-day counterparts. They all have brain volumes the same as or smaller than those of present-day chimpanzees. They walked on four feet. Like present-day apes they had bony protrusions that helped them to climb trees, and their feet were prehensile to allow them to cling onto branches. They were short in stature (maximum 130 cm) and, just like present-day apes, the male Australopithecus was much larger than the female. Hundreds of details in their skulls, and features such as their close-set eyes, their sharp molars, their jaw structure and their long arms and short legs are all evidence showing they were no different to present-day apes.
Although the Australopithecines were all evidently species of ape, Darwinists describe them as life forms that managed to walk on two legs. This is a deception, because not a single one of the Australopithecus-related fossils unearthed to date corroborates this scenario. The evolutionary scenario on these entities is thus based on no scientific evidence.
According to Darwinists, although there were various species in the Australopithecus family, only Australopithecus afarensis (the species represented by “Lucy” who was portrayed to the whole world as proof of so-called human evolution when she was discovered in 1974) is regarded as a direct ancestor of man. However even Darwinists accepted that the creature in question cannot be suggested as the ancestor of humans. The French Darwinist journal Science et Vie used the subject as its cover story in its May 1999 issue. Under the caption “Adieu Lucy,” the magazine discussed Lucy, regarded as the most important fossil specimen from the species Australopithecus afarensis, and said that Australopithecus apes were not the forerunners of human beings and that they should be removed from the family tree. 1
The world famous paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey also says that Lucy has no evolutionary validity: It is overwhelmingly likely that Lucy (Australophitecus afarensis) was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee. The evidence for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.2
In addition, as a result of his researches into Australopithecines the evolutionist Lord Zuckerman also concluded that they were an ordinary species of ape and very definitely did not walk upright. 3
Another evolutionist and anatomist well known for his researches into the subject, Charles E. Oxnard, stated that the skeletal structure of Australopithecines resembles that of today’s orang utans. 4
In 1994, Fred Spoor and his team from Liverpool University in Britain carried out a comprehensive study in order to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the Australopithecus skeleton. An organ in the skeleton known as the “cochlea,” which determines the position of the body in relation to the ground, was investigated. Spoor’s conclusion was that Australopithecus did not walk in a manner similar to that of human beings. 5
Another study in 2000 by the scientists B.G Richmond and D.S Strait, published in Nature magazine, examined the forearms of Australopithecines. Their comparative anatomical research showed that the species had the same forearm structure as those of present-day monkeys that walk on 4 legs.6
All this evidence reveals that Australopithecines were nothing more than species of ape. Indeed, the evolutionist anthropologists who discovered Lucy, Donald Johanson and T. D. White, issued the following statement in Science magazine:
In summary, scientific research has refuted all the claims suggesting that Australopithecines were the forerunners of human beings. They were all species of monkey, and to equate them with human beings is a fiction of the Darwinists, a false scenario used by them for the sake of their false theories.
_____________
1 Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy", Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62
2 Richard Leakey, “Lucy – Evolution’s Solitary Claim For an Ape/Man: Her Position is Splitting Away” Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 3, Aralık 1985, s. 144-145 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 188
3 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, s. 75-94
4 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, cilt 258, s. 389
5 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, cilt 369, 23 Haziran 1994, s. 645-648
6 Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000.)
7 D. Johanson - T. D. White, Science, 203:321, 1979, 207:1104, 1980 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 187-188
Australopithecus is an extinct species of ape. The name means "Southern ape," and Darwinists seek to depict it as the first ape-like forebear of human beings. As with all other examples, since this species of ape is extinct evolutionists have used it as a tool for speculation. But as with all other examples, the scenarios that Darwinists produce regarding Australopithecus are again based on deception.
Australopithecus is thought to have first appeared in Africa 4 million years ago and to have survived until 1 million years ago. The fact that needs to be made clear here is that all Australopithecines are extinct apes resembling their modern-day counterparts. They all have brain volumes the same as or smaller than those of present-day chimpanzees. They walked on four feet. Like present-day apes they had bony protrusions that helped them to climb trees, and their feet were prehensile to allow them to cling onto branches. They were short in stature (maximum 130 cm) and, just like present-day apes, the male Australopithecus was much larger than the female. Hundreds of details in their skulls, and features such as their close-set eyes, their sharp molars, their jaw structure and their long arms and short legs are all evidence showing they were no different to present-day apes.
Although the Australopithecines were all evidently species of ape, Darwinists describe them as life forms that managed to walk on two legs. This is a deception, because not a single one of the Australopithecus-related fossils unearthed to date corroborates this scenario. The evolutionary scenario on these entities is thus based on no scientific evidence.
According to Darwinists, although there were various species in the Australopithecus family, only Australopithecus afarensis (the species represented by “Lucy” who was portrayed to the whole world as proof of so-called human evolution when she was discovered in 1974) is regarded as a direct ancestor of man. However even Darwinists accepted that the creature in question cannot be suggested as the ancestor of humans. The French Darwinist journal Science et Vie used the subject as its cover story in its May 1999 issue. Under the caption “Adieu Lucy,” the magazine discussed Lucy, regarded as the most important fossil specimen from the species Australopithecus afarensis, and said that Australopithecus apes were not the forerunners of human beings and that they should be removed from the family tree. 1
The world famous paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey also says that Lucy has no evolutionary validity: It is overwhelmingly likely that Lucy (Australophitecus afarensis) was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee. The evidence for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.2
In addition, as a result of his researches into Australopithecines the evolutionist Lord Zuckerman also concluded that they were an ordinary species of ape and very definitely did not walk upright. 3
Another evolutionist and anatomist well known for his researches into the subject, Charles E. Oxnard, stated that the skeletal structure of Australopithecines resembles that of today’s orang utans. 4
In 1994, Fred Spoor and his team from Liverpool University in Britain carried out a comprehensive study in order to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the Australopithecus skeleton. An organ in the skeleton known as the “cochlea,” which determines the position of the body in relation to the ground, was investigated. Spoor’s conclusion was that Australopithecus did not walk in a manner similar to that of human beings. 5
Another study in 2000 by the scientists B.G Richmond and D.S Strait, published in Nature magazine, examined the forearms of Australopithecines. Their comparative anatomical research showed that the species had the same forearm structure as those of present-day monkeys that walk on 4 legs.6
All this evidence reveals that Australopithecines were nothing more than species of ape. Indeed, the evolutionist anthropologists who discovered Lucy, Donald Johanson and T. D. White, issued the following statement in Science magazine:
Fossils of Australopithecus have been studied in painstaking detail: their manner of walking, the structure of their ear, pattern of tooth development, their long and powerful forearms, short hind limbs, structure of their feet, small sized brains, and very ape- like skulls, jaws, and faces. These prove that Australopithecus was an ape and no way related to man. Donald Johanson himself, the discoverer of Lucy, later concluded that Australophitecus africanus (Lucy) was not related to humans at all. 7
In summary, scientific research has refuted all the claims suggesting that Australopithecines were the forerunners of human beings. They were all species of monkey, and to equate them with human beings is a fiction of the Darwinists, a false scenario used by them for the sake of their false theories.
_____________
1 Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy", Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62
2 Richard Leakey, “Lucy – Evolution’s Solitary Claim For an Ape/Man: Her Position is Splitting Away” Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 3, Aralık 1985, s. 144-145 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 188
3 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, s. 75-94
4 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, cilt 258, s. 389
5 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, cilt 369, 23 Haziran 1994, s. 645-648
6 Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000.)
7 D. Johanson - T. D. White, Science, 203:321, 1979, 207:1104, 1980 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 187-188
SHARE
TOPICS
perversionUnhappinessmathematicsmushroomfragranceGhazi sayingfollower of Hazrat Mahdifreemason lodgesOttoman historylast prophetWar of IndependenceReligious Affairspiousfoster childdiscussionconjecturewise pesonmaturityHazrat AliPharaoh's wifecruelconflictSurat al-Cumadonkeys loaded with booksblessingthose with sickness in their heartsal-Ghaffaranti-thesisthesisschoolNevzat TandoganNamik GedikIspartaAnkaraAdnan MenderesPurest Spiritage of maturitySurat al-MaidaKehlenSurah Al ImranGalaxyBudaAnsarrefugeehejiraAydin DoganThe National ViewOguzhan AsilturkSevket KazanFelicity Party Ahmet Hakanal-HadiAllah's willmeanswillhumble free willexplanationstyleSahih HadithHaji BekhtasYunus EmreLion of Allahspiritual blissseal