The Evolution Deceit

Evolutionary ancestor-descendant propaganda is merely a bedtime story

Enlarge video
 
One principle component in the propaganda of the fairy tale that species evolved from one another is the fossil species considered within an ancestor-descendant relationship. These relationships may assume concrete form in diagrams in which different species are located on the branches of a family tree, or in the words of a scientist interpreting the skulls laid out in a row on his/her desk. As fossils are interpreted within the scope of evolutionary lines of descent by these means, most people get the impression that such accounts represent scientific data obtained from fossils.

One principle component in the propaganda of the fairy tale that species evolved from one another is the fossil species considered within an ancestor-descendant relationship. These relationships may assume concrete form in diagrams in which different species are located on the branches of a family tree, or in the words of a scientist interpreting the skulls laid out in a row on his/her desk. As fossils are interpreted within the scope of evolutionary lines of descent by these means, most people get the impression that such accounts represent scientific data obtained from fossils. The fact is that such an impression is totally deceptive. The relationship in question exists solely in the minds of evolutionists and is based on no scientific data whatsoever.

One authority to express this openly is Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London. In an interview, Patterson said that the series that people liked to describe as if they really existed were in fact fictitious. Patterson went on to say:

If you ask, "What is the evidence for continuity?" you would have to say, "There isn"t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind." 1

In fact, fossils always represent not an ancestor-descent relationship, but rather isolated points in a particular period in history. The concepts of the "the ancestor of man," (or the ancestor of any other species) and the "missing link," used as another vehicle for evolutionist propaganda, are terms based on no scientific data at all, and are "man-made inventions" produced in the light of scenarios in people"s minds.

Henry Gee, an evolutionist palaeontologist and editor of the journal Nature, is someone who has effectively unveiled the unscientific aspects of the ancestor-descendant account still widely maintained by many of his professional colleagues. In his book In Search of Deep Time, Gee writes:

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps… To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact. 2

Most of us will have seen in TV documentaries a number of fossils laid out side by side and being interpreted within imaginary chains of ancestor and descendant by a scientist. Gee has stated that such interpretations are of no scientific worth, and consist merely of a "bedtime story" adapted to prejudices:

From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices… 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 a bedtime story- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. 3

In short, when one encounters a fossil it is impossible to be certain that it is your ancestor or that of anything else, even that of another fossil.4 For that reason, the evolutionary ancestor-descendant propaganda disseminated all over the world by written and visual evolutionist media must be taken as fairy tales devoid of any scientific foundation, and it must be realised that they are of no more value than a tale constructing a line of descent between the frog and human beings.

 

 

1) L.D. Sunderland, Darwin"s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, revised edition, 1988, p. 90, emphasis added
2) Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division for Simon & Schuster, Inc. , 1999, pp. 32, 113, emphasis added
3) Ibid, pp. 114, 117
4) Ibid, p. 127

0000-00-00 00:00:00

Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com - info@harunyahya.com
page_top