Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage

After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga… These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything

OTA BENGA: "The pygmy in the zoo"

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man", in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientific name", Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. 67 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

The picture on the left was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species.

Imaginary and Deceptive Drawings

In pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record

At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. 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 a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.62

THREE DIFFERENT RECONSTRUCTIONS BASED ON THE SAME SKULL

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

The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.

WHAT’s up with you man, are you getting said for telling people that darwin is wrong. few centuries ago every one thought world was flat, people believed it. some fools might still believe world is flat. are you one of then too.
you blame darwin for some crack pot did? then should i blame holy kouran for all the stuff happening today, which i won’t
grow up ,

evouliton theory alraedy blames religion.

thr theory claim that the theory is scientific and religion  is not scientific.

I only would you like to show you that the theory is not scientific and religion is scientific.

religion is scientific? science evolved from religion. so i guess you are right about that. but my friend you can not say science is false . EVOLUTION theory only disagrees with adam and eav story. and even i don’t believe in that story either.

I never say science is false.

you are wrong.

contrary I always say the evolutionists dont trust science and they make hoaxes.

biology says only genetic changes passes to future generatotions and all mutains are harmfull.so now,any usefull mutation is not seen even special labs.

archeology says there are not any fossil.

maths says it is not possible that a protein chain can come into existince by itself,by chanse.a cell,a bacteria cannot occur by itself.definitely a intelligent one is neccessary to make them what a complex.

astronomy says,it is impossible that bacuse the space is in extraordinary  regularity ,this cannot occur without an intelligent one…. 

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/

FROM where did you get all this stuff from? who told you fossils don’t exist, i have seen one and touched one too. who told you all genetic mutations are bad? .
then how do you say humans appeared ? out of thin air ?

yes,you can see and touch some ''deceptive and fooling'' fossils but you cannot see and touch a real fossil.

because it is not exist.

if a real fossil existed ,they would not make hoaxes and deceptions.

who told you all genetic mutations are bad?

science tells it.biology!!!!

YOU are a highly uninformed person, and also ignorant. just go to a local museum. tell your “fossil” story to him/her ,and then tell weather it is a lie or not

Jav.

dont try cheap way!

you know I meant the fossils of ''intermediate forms''

evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php