Nobody believes in the myth of the ape-man anymore. Scientists first. Why then insist?

On 31 August 2015 Last update 13 April 2023 500 0

by Zanotto Paolo

In November of 1859 the famous English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) published in London The Origins of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The origin of the species by natural selection, work in which he expounded his theory on evolution for the first time.

According to Darwin, the species would have progressively transformed over the ages, especially in order to adapt to changes in their natural environment and avoid, so, the risk of extinction. But the burning question of man's animal origin was not addressed.

however, in 1868 followed The variation of animals and plants in the domestic state and in 1871 another work would come out, entitled The lineage of man and sexual selection, in which Darwin indicated Africa as the cradle of humanity, further advocating the extermination of the "savage races of the Earth" by the "civilized human races". finally, the last notable work of the English positivist was the book on The expression of emotions in humans and animals, appeared in 1872.

The "agnostic" Darwin (loved by Karl Marx precisely because he had dealt a "fatal blow" to God) in this way he laid the foundations for freeing the birth of all living creatures from the divine nature, proposing a "casual" thesis, constituted by the intervention of changing climatic conditions, habitat and related growing needs, which would have conditioned those living species that would have proved capable of mutating together with these elements e, then, to win the fight for survival.

Down's obscure naturalist thus accomplished the task he had been assigned. In fact, so says the geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, the most authoritative international representative of scientific anti-evolutionism e, in general, of critical reflection on modern science ever since, in 1971, published the essay for the publisher Rusconi, really against the tide, The twilight of scientism.

Sermonti argues that some characters would have previously hired Darwin in order to develop a materialist theory on the origin of life, assuring him considerable fame and rapid editorial success. It would have been individuals who acted on behalf of an elusive Club X, officially constituted in London in 1864. This association apparently used to meet before the meetings of the Royal Society to discuss the political, cultural and media directions that British society should have taken. The first edition of The Origin of Species was sold out in a single day , after an initial rather generalized mockery. In just ten years, Darwin won the consensus of the scientific orthodoxy of the time. In short, Club X had achieved its goal and kept its promises.

The disturbances of a naturalist

For centuries, or for millennia, no one had ever noticed the "overwhelming evidence" provided by Darwin, even if he had them in front of his eyes.

Then, suddenly, all those "secret truths" were finally "exposed in evidence" and the answers that had long been expected would emerge from the clod. I'm, that is, the remains of an ancestral reality that had been hidden and mentally removed for too long have come to light.

The evidence on which these reinterpretations of human history are based are however some fossil remains that would constitute the links of a virtual chain, which would lead in a straight line from the most primitive specimens of the genus of primates to man.

It is useless to ask why - if these theories were really reliable - at the same latitude, climatic and environmental conditions, and so on, it is possible to find "evolved" specimens of homo sapiens sapiens next to baboons and chimpanzees, but there is no "Neanderthal" or "Cro Magnon" or "Steinheim" man in circulation.

As has been authoritatively observed, the extreme rarity of the intermediate forms, also in the fossil record, it continues to hold a sort of "caste secret" of paleontology. It is useless to look for the reason for the extinction of the specimens of the intermediate stages, but more than anything else superfluous since the indisputability of the Darwinist dogma is contained in those very few fossil remains that have been mentioned. So rare that they even torment Darwin himself.

The do-it-yourself ape-man

Much less disturbed they appear, instead, his later followers and emulators. All taken up by contending with each other for the palm of orthodoxy rather than that of originality, producing simple variations on the theme, the mockery of the artist escapes their eyes (just as that of the heads of Amedeo Modigliani escaped affirmed art critics), since, if the main occupation is to divide into a thousand streams, faced with the need to defend the disputed dogmatic hinge, the scattered troops regain the monolithic compactness of a Roman testudo.

However, like doubting in front of a Dawsoni eoanthropus, better known as "Piltdown Man", which had all the necessary characteristics to represent the classic textbook case. Two skulls with markedly primitive characters, a clearly simian jaw, a canine and a molar were brought to the surface between the 1909 and the 1915.

Meanwhile, that "man" was positively evaluated by some alleged specialists e, therefore, inserted as a certain fact and acquired in numerous prestigious publications, such as the famous Encyclopedia Treccani which provided extensive descriptions. Unfortunately, But, almost forty years after the discovery of the fragments in the homonymous town in East Sussex, in 1953 a commission of scientists proved that it was a sensational hoax.

If anyone were tempted to think of an error by this latter team of scholars, think again: the forger, indeed, he has already told everything and Treccani was forced to permanently rectify the page 351 of the third appendix (1949-1960), explaining how the famous Piltdown find was nothing but the "product of a hoax". The skull was, indeed, a human fossil from the Neolithic era (therefore relatively recent); the jaw belonged to a young orangutan who died a few years earlier, whose teeth had been filed to make them look human; the canine had also been filed, in order to apply it to the mandible; and the pivot knob (condyle) it had been freshly broken in order to adapt the jaw to the skull. The whole was then artificially worn and chemically colored to simulate the effect of time.

The almond-eyed cannibals

Another clear case of abusive interpretation is represented by the so-called synanthropus or homo pekinensis. Only due to the fact that the bone remnants of this monkey - until then totally unknown to zoologists - fur
were found together with the remains of prehistoric tools and hearths, it was automatically deduced that it was the remains of their creator, that is, of a human being, although the remains of the skeleton in question were clearly mixed with those of prey animals. The skull, Furthermore, had the same perforations observed in similar cases, where the expedient was necessary in order to take the tasty cerebro. So, so as not to have to conclude the most obvious thing, that is, that the discovery concerned nothing other than a prey of prehistoric men, the scientists announced that the so-called homines pekinenses had even devoured each other.

For about six years in the highly authoritative Boston Review of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (WITH) an absolutely devastating controversy raged for the Darwinist doctrine when suddenly, on the November issue 1999, National Geographic magazine published with emphasis the photo of a mineral plate in which an image of a feathered theropod was seen. "It's proof that birds evolved from these ancient reptiles", biologist Barry A exulted too hastily. Palevitz in the sensationalist article that accompanied the alleged discovery. The feathered reptile thus redefined the worn-out theory of evolution.
Darwinism, indeed, is in such decline overseas that in many states of the North American Union it has even been asked and obtained that its teaching be suppressed from schools or, at least, presented as a simple hypothesis as an alternative to others, which must be reported in the same way. To realize the enormous difficulties that the "monkey theory" is going through in the scientific environment, just take a quick tour on the Internet and see for yourself how many sites host critical theses, by entering keywords such as "creationism" in any search engine.

The 'bird' at last discovered, therefore, creationism would have been definitively defeated.

Acquired his rightful place in the Darwinian pattern of lineages, to the evolutionary junction between reptiles and birds, the "new" animal was baptized with a high-sounding Latin name, as necessary: archaeoraptor liaoningensis. Shortly thereafter, however, it would have been bitterly ascertained that the supposed fossil was just another fake, composed of two different remains (of a bird and a sorrel) glued together, with Asian skill, by the very poor Chinese peasants who live in Liaoning province, who exploit and sell fossils from a rich local deposit on the black market.

The fake compound was offered to the owner of a small private museum in Utah at a paleontological trouvaille fair, held in February of 1999 in the State of Arizona, at the city of Tucson.
Earlier this long-awaited proof of the ancestry of birds from prehistoric reptiles had been sought. The rest, the Darwinist theory was clear: all the living forms of the earth had undergone sensational evolutions, adapting to the surrounding environment. Somewhere, therefore, the elements that confirmed the veracity of those extravagant ideas should also have come out.

Illusionism and prestidigitation

In reality, already in the distant 1957, North American scholar Douglas Dewar in The Transformist Illusion - published in Murfreesboro, in Tennessee, from DeHoff Publications - noted that the whole theory of the gradual evolution of species, headed by Darwin, is based on a huge confusion between "species" and "subspecies".

In his opinion, individual species would not only be separated from each other by abysmal differences, but there are also no forms that hint at any possible connection between the different orders of living beings, like fish, the reptiles, birds and mammals. It was not imaginable in the most absolute way that one could have been born of the other. Also the famous fossil called archeopteryx, frequently cited as an example of an intermediate member between a reptile and a bird, it is actually an authentic representative of the latter animal category, despite some singular characteristics - such as the nails at the end of the wings, the teeth in the jaws and the long tail with the branched feathers - could understandably at first glance mislead.

The most serious and scrupulous modern scholars, now, they completely reject the thesis of the evolution of the species, or they limit themselves to keeping it provisionally exclusively as a mere "working hypothesis".

The most recent discoveries in the field of paleontology, sedimentologia, chemistry, molecular biology and genetics have indeed disassembled, piece by piece, the house of cards on which Darwinist evolutionism was based.

The rest, not only all known animal forms would have originated, almost simultaneously, during the period of the "Cambrian explosion", but the most recent research has shown the incredible complexity of even those organisms that the various Piero Angela insist on defining "simple".

The multiple of the infinitely small

Electron microscopy has, indeed, highlighted how the processes that take place within the single-celled being are of an unimaginable multiplicity. Furthermore, as he recognized, already in 1977, even Professor Stephen Jay Gould himself, Professor of Geology and Zoology at the prestigious Harvard University, as well as a heterodox Darwinist and an avowed Marxist, «the fossil record in no way supports the gradual change».

On the same line, geologist David Schindel, professor at Yale University, who, in an article that appeared in 1982 in the journal Nature, revealed that the hypothesized gradual "transition from presumed ancestors to descendants […] did not exist ".

Definitely, it can be said that - under the test of facts - the Darwinian theory turned out to be a simple product of its own age. Victorian English felt intimately superior to the rest of the world and Darwinism seemed to provide a scientific sanction for this belief.

The story of Club X and the simultaneous development of an insidious "social Darwinism" on a philosophical-political level say a lot about the real value of that "natural selection" contemplated in evolutionism.

Once this theory has been acquired by the scientific community, therefore, a dangerous path has been taken that current scholars fear to abandon since, perhaps, they believe this would be the same, in fact, to decree a failure which could suffer the whole class of contemporary scientists.

If so, it would be a very serious fact, since it would account for the weakness - disguised with arrogance - from which science is affected today. Otherwise, plausible explanations are awaited as to why a serious and in-depth debate has not yet begun also in Italy, and for what strange reason one insists on presenting a simple myth as an acquired truth.