Darwinists: ''We apologize once again, we were also mistaken about Ardi''

Darwinists have had to keep apologizing for thelast 150 years; "sorry,
that was a hoax," they said, "our mistake, it wasa pig tooth, not a
humanone," they said, "sorry about that, the moths were deliberately
stuck onto the trees," "the skull had been planed down," "feathers had
been stuck onto the dinosaur by hand," "it appears that this fossil is
still alive and not an intermediate form at all," and "the primordial
atmosphere was not likethat at all," they said. "Embryos are not like
this at all, the illustrations are fakes," they said. "We said it was
the ancestor of man,but it appears it was justan ordinary ape," they
said. They have kept on apologizing and retracting their claims. They
have hurriedly withdrawn fossils from museums. Declaring something to
be an intermediate fossil in one issue of a journal, they have issued
an apology in the subsequent edition. And this has carried on right
down to the present day.
The reason is this: DARWINISM IS SIMPLY A DEVIANT IDEOLOGY, WITH
NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT IT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN A SINGLE
PIECE OF SCIENTIFICEVIDENCE. It is for that reason that Darwinists
constantly manufacture false evidence. But their frauds are only
short-lived.
When their frauds emerge into the light of day, Darwinists then have
to stand up before the public and apologize. Piltdown Man, Nebraska
Man, the peppered moths, Haeckel's embryo drawings, the Coelacanth,
Lucy, Archaeoraptor, the equine evolution series, the skulls which
they have tried to be depict as evidence for the mythof human
evolution, Archaeopteryx and most recently Ida have all gone down as
some of the worst frauds there have ever been. Ida, the subject of
great show all over the world, was the most recent instance of this.
This fossil, described falsely as "the ancestor of man" and as "the
greatest evidence for evolution" on one of the world's best known TV
channels, the subject of documentary films and press conferences,
eventually turned out to be nothing more than an ordinary lemur
fossil. Following all the clamor they had created, Darwinists then had
to apologize yet again. (You can find more detailed information on the
subject here .)
ARDI HAS ALSO RECENTLY BEEN A PART OF ALL THIS FUROR. Darwinists took
an ordinary monkey fossil and totally rebuilt the completely
fragmented pelvic bone, which its millimetrically small pieces
continues toshatter , in such a way asto permit it "to walk upright."
One of the main reasons why the fossil in question was chosen as the
greatest potential candidate for the imaginary human evolution
scenario was the fact that its pelvic bone was reconstructed by
Darwinist scientists "in the way they wished." Darwinists did what
needed to be donein the name of Darwinism and Ardi was shamelessly
portrayed tothe whole world as an "upright-walking ape." They had no
hesitation in depicting it as the greatest evidence for supposed human
evolution. But like all theothers, this furor was also short-lived,
and the Darwinist fraud soon came out into the light of day and
directly, fromstatements made by Darwinist scientists.
Now it's time FOR THEM TO APOLOGIZE FOR ARDI.
The Darwinist William Jungers, head of the anatomical sciences
department of the Stony Brook University, Long Island, medical center
made this comment about the claims that Ardi represents an "ancestor
of man:"
I think some of the things they said might have been for effect. [1]
The Darwinist Tim White from the University of California and his
team, who examined Ardi and suggested that it might be the missing
link in the supposed evolution of man, had to make thisadmission:
"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the
exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus," [2]
The fact that the totally shattered pelvic bone and its surroundings
were reconstructed completely in the light ofDarwinist scientists'
interpretations was also explicitly set out by Darwinist scientists.
Jungers said this on the subject:
Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start
out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very
similar to an australopithecine [an imaginary human-like group
including Lucy]"."It's very difficult not to make them look like
something you have in your mind if there's any chance of play"
... Ardi, requires a lot of guesswork. [3]
After examining the fossil remains Jungers said, "there is no way that
they could belong to 'an animal that wasn'toften walking on its hind
legs' unless the data 'were deliberately ignored or if we had made
them up'." [4] With that statement it was revealed that Tim White and
his team had perpetrated yet another deception in the name of
Darwinism.
It is not only the pelvic bone findings that refute the claims made
about Ardi. One article published in Science magazine stated that
theanatomy of Ardi's hind feet showed that it was a climbing animal.
An article titled "How Humanlike Was Ardi?" byKatherine Harmon of
Scientific American magazine said that not asingle part of the
animal's feet showed that it stood upright. Thefeet, and the big toes
in particular, exhibit features still found in present-day chimpanzees
that assist in climbing. Jungers summarizes the situationby saying:
[Ardi] really doesn't show any adaptations for bipedalism at all. [5]
Lacking a single piece of evidence with which to prove their claims,
Darwinists are now resorting to the following deception in order to be
able to portray this life form as the supposed ancestor of man: "The
females were small, because theylooked after the young while the males
went hunting." This wretched claim is in fact importantevidence of the
hopelessposition in which Darwinists find themselves. Since they have
no evidence in their possession, they have no hesitation over
resorting to demagoguery. It is shameful for a scientist to make such
a claim and, on the basis of it, todeclare that a perfect bonobo
monkey is in fact the ancestor of man.But no matter how embarrassing
it may be, Darwinists are obliged to repeat these pitiful claims for
the sake of deviant Darwinist ideology.
There is little need to take such a claim seriously and respond toit.
But it will be useful, from the point of view of showing the wretched
state into which those making it have fallen, to make this clear:
human beings are not the only living thingsto have a family life that
includes division of labor. Many living thingslive as families, and
bothmales and females within the family have their own separate tasks.
In many it is the males that hunt, while the females take care of the
young. Therefore, the fact that the female of a particular life form
does not hunt, but looks after the young, DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MAKE IT
HUMAN. This ludicrous claim clearly reveals the deception of which
Darwinist logic rests.
Conclusion:
The Darwinist dictatorship is now in a hopeless position. They are at
a loss how to resurrect the deceased Darwin and his ideas. They are
trying to retrieve the position in astate of despair and panic. They
are therefore prepared to risk ridicule and espousing nonsensical
claims to that end. That is how Darwinism has collapsed and been
defeated in the 21st century. Ardi has again made that collapse and
rout crystal clear. Darwinists have had to retract all their claims
concerning Ardi, and have now realized that they can no longer deceive
people as they used to in the past. False fossils that used to be
displayed in museums for 40 years are now being exposed for what they
really are, and frauds now have a life span of only a few days, or
even hours. Darwinists' efforts to bring evolution back to life with
false fossils are all in vain. Darwinists themselves now see and admit
this.
[1] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, ScientificAmerican,
19 November 2009,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[2] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, ScientificAmerican,
19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[3] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, ScientificAmerican,
19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[4] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, ScientificAmerican,
19 November 2009,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[5] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, ScientificAmerican,
19 November2009,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ -
-