Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. X

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture.

For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

“El Hombre de Orce” a.k.a Orce Man

In 1982, three Catalan archaeologists headed by Professor José Gibert and other notables, including Paul Palmqvist, were digging near the dusty village of Orce, in the province of Granada, in Spain. The expedition centered on the Venta Micena region of southern Spain near the town of Orce. Naturally, the expedition came across an unusual bone fragment, probably a fragment of skull bone. Coming from the Venta Micena site, the fossil was designated VM-0 and was affectionately called “La Galleta,” the Cookie, because it was roundish and about the size of a child’s first attempt to bake a chocolate chip cookie.

A year later, they announced that the fragment had belonged to a young human male child.

“In view of many paleoanthropologists, the story of human evolution has been fictionalized to suit needs other than scientific rigor.” *B. Rensberger, “Facing the Past” in Science, October 1981, Vol. 81, pp. 41, 49.

Furthermore, by 1983 this fragment was hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe after Gilbert claimed that the piece of skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.7 million years ago, and even had very detailed drawings executed to represent what the naked hominid would have looked like. They even suggested the cause of death: the child had been devoured by a hyena.

So certain were Darwinists that this bone represented a primitive hominid that they dubbed the specimen, “El Hombre de Orce” — the Orce Man — after the southern Spanish town near which it had been found. The cookie was now a full grown missing link between prehistoric monkey and man!

All that from a cookie sized piece of bone.  Imagine that.

In later posts I plan to demonstrate how Darwinist “artistic” renderings and interpretations often drastically alter scale and fill in unknowns with total nonsense based on nothing but a preconceived notion playing to an agenda.  This is a time honored Darwinian practice that dates back to Ernst Haeckel.  Just as an aside, notice how in paintings, sketches, and dioramas, Darwinists always depict “cavemen” or hominids or missing links as buck naked and rather hirsute monkey-man hybrids.  I contend this is intentional and meant to more closely visually associate the Darwinist  monkey-to -man myth with the “naked apes.”  Nevermind the fact that evidence of clothing is nearly always found including, sometimes, chainmail.

“Compared to other sciences, the mythic element is greatest in paleoanthropology. Hypotheses and stories of human evolution frequently arise unprompted by data and contain a large measure of general preconceptions, and the data which do exist are often insufficient to falsify or even substantiate them. Many interpretations are possible. These books all provide new alternatives, some refining the subject with new information; all, in varying degrees, supplant the old myths with new ones.” *W. Hill, “Book Review, ” in American Scientist (1984), Vol. 72, pp: 188-189.

A symposium on Orce Man was planned for late May, 1984. So great was the consensus on the importance of this find, and so motivated were Darwinists to spread the word, that a full three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled, so that the experts could examine and discuss the bone.

A UPI press release announced that the skull fragment found in Spain was the oldest human fossil ever found in Europe.

Then came trouble which struck like a guillotine.

The French, having no real love of the Spaniards, even fellow Darwinist Spaniards, arrived early and examined the cookie. Experts from Paris agreed with Gilbert that the bone was undoubtedly a skull fragment, and congratulated him on his assessment. However, they pointed out and supported with a preponderance of evidence that it was most likely a skull fragment belonging to, not a gazillion year old hominid, but a four to six month old donkey.

“SKULL FRAGMENT MAY NOT BE HUMAN”, announced the Knoxville News-Sentinel. The Daily Telegraph, an Australian newspaper, carried the story of the latest bone hoax with the much more humorous (pardon the pun) headline: “ASS TAKEN FOR MAN.”

The embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters canceling the symposium. Personally, I wonder what happened to all the artwork and posters.

The debate continued to rage for years afterward. A 1995 fractal analysis of the skull sutures by Gibert and Palmqvist  strongly indicated that the fragment was not from an equine. That same year, an international symposium was eventually held at Orce to discuss this analysis and other material, and a number of participants agreed, suggesting that VM-0 was a hominid fossil (Zihlman and Lowenstein 1996). A paper (Borja et al. 1997) has argued in favor of VM-0 being a hominid based on immunological studies of fossil proteins performed at two independent laboratories although the premise of the claim is questionable based on a possible incorrect assumption.

However, two articles appearing in July 1997 disputed all these claims. The most telling was by Palmqvist again, this time citing errors in the 1995 paper that he had coauthored with Gibert.  Palmqvist now claimed that the fractal evidence was clearly in favor of an equid (horse, donkey, burrow, jack-ass) origin for VM-0.

Much like sock-puppets reading a nearly identical script after each hoax is exposed, Darwinists like to say that the jury is still out on the Orce Man, that consensus was never reached, that Darwinists were the ones to correct the mistake, that real evidence will only be marginalized “when found” by dwelling on the “few” hoaxes of the last century and a half. What do you think?

They Call Him Flipperithicus

Which brings us all the way up to my personal favorite and most well covered up Darwinist hoax.  What other hoax has a theme song?

They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he…

Noted Anthropologist Dr. Noel Boaz of New York University studied a curvy piece of bone and determined that it was at least (big booming announcer voice) five million years old! Furthermore, it was obviously a clavicle (collar bone) of a very early hominid, possibly the earliest ancestor of modern man yet found. He published his findings regarding the fossil find in the journals Nature, and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Natural History.

What an amazing claim!

Things went swimmingly until, at a meeting of physical anthropologists, one of his fellows was skeptical of the find, stating that at first glance the bone looks nothing like a collar bone. In fact, Dr. White, an anthropologist from the University of California-Berkeley, stated that “to be a clavicle, the specimen should have an S…curve, but it does not.”

Dr. White studied the find further and finally classified it. “It’s a dolphin.”

And we know Flipper, Flipper,
lives in a world full of wonder,
Lying there under,
under the sea!

I remember getting up early on Saturday mornings as a young boy to watch the Lassie and Flipper hour. Flipper was cool. I’m just not sure he had shoulders.

A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley. Ian Anderson, “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, New Scientist, 28 April 1983, page 199.

Again, in Nature, Dr. Noel Boaz countered, “I have not gone any further than the evidence allowed.” Dr. Boaz described the amazing find, and defended his stance regarding the fossil.

I imagine my detractors will claim that this was just “a mistake” and not an intentional hoax or attempted fraud.  I am not the person who accused the good doctor of such shenanigans.

Throwing salt water in the wound, Dr. White responded by accusing Boaz of an attempted fraud equal to that of Java Man and Piltdown Man.  Dr. White teaches at Berkely.  For those of you who aren’t familiar, that isn’t really a Bible college.

White’s conclusive evidence of attempted fraud: The bone in question was not properly curved and the nutrient foramen, a tiny opening, opened the wrong way. His contention was that any competent first year anthropological student would have noted these discrepancies immediately.  It is entirely unreasonable to believe that a Ph.D holder in physical anthropology would overlook these things.

White said, “The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”

To me, this statement makes perfect sense.  Of course they want so much to find a “hominid” or a transitional form or a missing link between monkey and man.  After all, no such thing has ever actually been found in more than a century and a half, and faith can only carry you so far.

Johns Hopkins University anthropologist Alan Walker stated that there is a long history of misinterpreting various bones as humanoid clavicles, that it is a amorphous bone, and scientist should be very judicious in interpreting it.

Walker admitted that skilled anthropologists have erroneously described the femur of an alligator and the toe of a horse (long pastern) as hominid clavicles!

“The unscientific and doctrinaire character of this whole field of study is well-epitomized. So much glamor still attaches to the theme of the missing link, and to man’s relationships with the animal world, that it may always be difficult to exercise from the comparative study of primates, living and fossil. The kind of myths which the unaided eye is able to conjure out of wishful thinking.”—Lord Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, (1970), p. 64.

The Truth

This concludes part TEN of my series on Darwinian evolutionary frauds.  When I began this series, I never imagined that I would be able to document so many frauds committed by Darwinists in the last 100 years.  The interesting part is that I am not even finished.  There is still Lucy the magical Austrolopithicine, dead moths, and the Archeoraptor to go and I am only scratching the surface.

All this forces me to ask the question, “Why is it that there appears to be an intent to deceive at the outset?”

Must evolutionary science, from time to time, simply fake evidence, commit fraud, perpetrate hoaxes — lie? Why is that?  Why stage so-called evidence when none exists?  Why fill in the blanks of all of the unknowns with pure speculation?  Why lie?  Why perpetrate fraud?  Why commit hoaxes?

The claims made by Darwinists when it comes to the monkey-to-man myth are so outrageous and based on an absolute absence of observation.  It reminds me of a humorous email that circulated some time ago.  It was a farcical letter allegedly written to the Smithsonian in which the author wanted desperately to classify a Barbie doll head he had found in his back yard as a hominid.

Except this stuff isn’t a joke!  It’s just a little bit pathetic.  “Let’s go find a tiny piece of bone and force it into the Darwinist evolutionary theory all according to the Darwinist world view!”

Is this like the people who think they see Buddha in their bowl of oatmeal?  A corn chip that looks strikingly similar to a Pope hat?  Are we talking about that kind of religious fervor?

The thing about the truth is that the truth is always true.  I don’t need to trick anyone into believing something that is true.  You either accept the truth, or choose to live in denial in the face of the truth.  The truth is still the truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

And the ultimate truth is readily available.  The truth is that there is no fraud contained in God’s word. No deception, no guile. Not one word is intended to deceive, fool, trick, or mislead.  God does not need to perpetrate fraud in order to convince anyone of what He is or what He has done.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg

---

Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It