Evolution Hoax

< <
6 / total: 12

Transcriptions of the Talks 3/8

Dr. Fabrizio Fratus - “Evolution: Myth or Reality?”

The first thing I want to say is that I personally think that Darwin's theory is a lie, a falsehood. I will start from the question: Is it myth or reality? to give an answer to this question we must first know if Darwinism is science.

So let's try to understand in a simple way what science is. Science must be observable, repeatable and testable. We must be able to verify that an experiment produce an effect that cannot be falsified. In this regard, it is very important to understand Karl Popper's theory. In an attempt to epistemologically understand what Darwin's theory was and how it has evolved, Karl Popper tried to find out a proof that could confute the theory itself. At some point, Karl Popper came to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable theory but it is just a metaphysical research program. This means that Karl Popper, an atheist philosopher, described Darwin's theory as a metaphysical theory that has nothing to do with science.

Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Physics Association in Italy, wrote a book entitled Colui Che Ha fatto Il Mondo in which, by explaining what the credibility of a scientific theory is, he said that the evolution of the human species remains below the level of scientific credibility because Darwin's theory does not pass the test of reproducibility and, since it is not possible to study events that are not reproducible, it is also impossible to observe an effect that have occurred only once. So, Antonino Zichichi thinks that Darwin's theory is not science, to and therefore it is not observable, it is not repeatable and not testable. This is an important point because it means that when we speak about Darwinism, we are not talking about science. Therefore, the science system must reject this hypothesis.

Let's now talk about what Darwinism produces. Let’s see the definition of the word "race" found in Italian vocabularies. a race is a human population locally or globally located, distinguished as a group more or less differentiated by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. So this is the definition of “race”. We know that anthropologists classify the four existing races in: Australians, Negroide, Mongols, and Caucasians. What does Darwinism say instead? Darwinism says that races have developed independently, and that some of them have developed better than others. This is an important point to understand.

In 1833 Darwin wrote, referring to the inhabitants of Terra del Fuoco: “These were the most abject and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld. Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are our fellow-creatures.” In 1871, speaking about the descendants of man, he said that non-white races simply cannot elevate entirely to the level of civilized human beings, and that they are mentally and morally at a lower level, in a way they are stuck at a previous stage of the biological evolution of human species. This means that they are inferior. That's what Darwin said. Darwinism creates racism. When we talk about Darwin we talk about racism.

Why Are There Big Differences Between Races?

The human beings body contains melanin, and this applies to all human populations. Depending on the decrease or increase of the level of melanin, the skin color is lighter or darker. So dark skin people, i.e. Negroid, have high levels of melanin and light skin people i.e. Caucasian, have lower levels of melanin. When there is a low level of melanin and a very sunny weather, the consequence will be skin cancer, when there is low level of melanin and a little sunny weather the consequence will be a vitamin D deficiency. We all know that for the northern populations it is very difficult to sunbath because their skin become red easily under the sun.

Let’s now explain the eyes’ differences: why do some populations have almond-shaped eyes while others have eyes with a different shape? For a simple reason: it depends on the fat quantity present in the part above the eye. the greater the fat quantity is in this part, the more the eye will have an almond shape. So, in this case, it is not a breed difference but just an encoded feature. the DNA contains everything that represents human being.

The entire codes necessary for man is found on the DNA. Just as our colleague explained before, all are registered on the DNA in the form of codes. How tall we are, the size of our nose, the size of our feet, if we are fat or thin, these are ciphered on the DNA. Actually, DNA’s are long sequences of information and inherited from one generation to another. Genes are smaller parts of the DNA. Mutations are errors that occur during reproduction and are generally harmful. It is important to understand this, because Darwinists claim that new generations emerge through mutations. This has never been proven, and it is mere manipulation.

We see different genes here and look into the difference between genes in various races. This is the Negroid race, and here is the mixture of the white and black people. According to this, no Caucasian parent could give birth to a Negroid child. In a similar way, no Negroid parent could give birth to a Caucasian child. Darwinism says that natural selection would eliminate these children. But, the truth is not like this, it is different. I am repeating again, this is only manipulation.

Here below, we can see various probabilities, which show the combinations of genes. the combinations from the egg, and the sperm may occur differently. Let me give you an example from the Anglo-Saxon race. a couple gives birth to twins, and one is white and the other is black. Because this was coded on their DNA before, this is not new information. Yet, newspapers and media culture outlets regard this to be a mutation. However, the situation is different here, we can only talk about the information coded on the

DNA right from the start. Now, I am going to give another example. In a Newsweek article dated 1988, they made research on Adam and Eve. This research was carried out using placenta from 147 women with claims that the DNA of the mitochondria was not the product of the mixing. They named this to be “mitochondrial DNA.” This date caused more problems for evolutionists because they presumed that man had appeared millions of years ago. They had no agreement on the date of man’s origin. and only 10 years after this in 1998, Science magazine wrote about mitochondrial DNA saying it changed faster than expected. This fact raises doubts on the history of evolutionary claims since evolutionists are concerned because of the effects of a more rhythmic mutation. Evolutionists thus proved that research made 10 years ago was in fact invalid. It mentions of a faster mutation here and claim in the Science magazine that Eve’s age is only 6000 years. and that is a scientific research held by Darwinists, the supporters of evolution theory. However, the author of the article kept on with his manipulations saying that nobody could think like him and only his allegations were the facts. For them this evolution did not occur through millions of years, but only in thousands of years.

Now, let me mention of evolutionist propaganda that is so influential in the media. From magazines to cinemas, there is strong indoctrination and pressure on people. If we mention of textbooks used for education, Haeckel’s drawings are included. Haeckel produced some embryo drawings that would indicate evolution according to his suppositions. In brief from fish to salamander, salamander to frog, frog to rabbit, and rabbit to man, he came up with a strange theory. Even though these fallacies were disclosed many times, this error is repeated over and over again in textbooks.

And there is the truth about Lucy that we all know very well. In Italy, we still see Lucy introduced as a chimpanzee with long arms, jaw and thighbone structure, hands and brain size. the Australopithecus were monkeys.

The Australopithecus we’ve heard about in the last decades are irrevocably not part of the history of the evolution of human bipedalism. This should create doubts about the traditional representations of man’s evolution in textbooks. This is what a paleontologist has written.

The human beings body contains melanin, and this applies to all human populations. Depending on the decrease or increase of the level of melanin, the skin color is lighter or darker.

Another very important case is that of the Neanderthal man found for the first time in 1856. In Italian textbooks, the Neanderthal man is described as the man who precedes Homo sapiens.

About the Neanderthal man, it has been discovered that he used to bury the deaths, wear jewels, create paintings, he used an advanced communication language, used to play musical instruments, and that he lived in the same era as the modern man. Neanderthal man’s DNA analysis revealed that there is no difference between the Neanderthal man and us. But in the textbooks it is said that the Neanderthal man is the man who preceded the Homo sapiens. the Neanderthal man fossils analysis has revealed that there is no difference between the Neanderthal man and us. But in textbooks it is said that the Neanderthal man is the man who preceded the Homo sapiens.

We cannot rely on anatomy and fossil record to reconstruct the evolutionary connections. Despite everything, paleontologists continue to use the same methodology. They know they are wrong, but they carry on with their works because they want to keep telling us about these lies. Let’s now speak about a topic that is very dear to me since I am carrying out studies on it. We describe the free will as a denial of materialism and therefore of Darwinism.

In Darwin’s theory, we know that nature is a continuous war for survival, a battle that every living being must constantly fight against his own kind and other species. This is the interpretation of evolutionists and not the reality. It is clear that, if man believes he descended from the monkeys, he will believe in values that would be different from the values he believed in if he knows that he is created by God. We can have societies based on the accumulation of money and materialistic, or a system of completely different values if based on the existence of the Lord. Darwin’s theory teaches us that man is perpetually in competition to survive and that his survival depends on his ability to choose what is best for him, inside the system in which he lives. This is the environmental adjustment. the Western system is capitalistic and therefore based on the accumulation. He, who accumulates more money and power, in the eyes of Darwinian, is better and the others have failed. This is Darwin’s theory applied to the social system.

Solidarity is against Darwin’s logic. Donating and sacrificing oneself is the empirical testimony that man has a conscience that cannot be explained through materialistic interpretations. Evolutionist psychology has no satisfying answers that can explain how man can donate without asking for anything in return. This is free will. If analyzed with the materialistic model, many man’s choices are incomprehensible, and according to Darwin’s theory, it is not possible to understand some of man’s choices. But these choices can be understood by interpreting them with a completely different way of thinking.

Let’s try to apply man choices that in our system are considered irrational, to the model represented in Thomas More’s book. We will then understand that we live in a fictitious system, that we organize this world ourselves but that, at the same time, it does not care about all the spiritual needs we have. We will encounter different things when we read this book. the relationship of man with nature in the postmodern world is not healthy. He can be manipulated socially and turn out to be a slave of a system that does not belong to him. However, man has a very precious value, which is free will. Yet, in a postmodern society man has lost his connection with his true perceptions and thus turned out to be easily manipulated socially. Free will is the direct and unequivocal testimony of the lack of validity of the materialistic hypotheses. Man is not the son of chance, he is not a mistake, but he is a perfect being and so are all the living things on earth.


Thank you.

Adnan Oktar Says

Darwin’s Racism


Darwin’s close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting the Origin of Species that “if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalization of the human race such as it had never seen before.”1 and truly, time showed that Sedgwick was right to have doubts. the 20th century has gone down in history as a dark age when people underwent massacres simply because of their race or ethnic origins.

Of course, there were discrimination and genocide based on it in human history long before Darwin. But Darwinism lent this discrimination a false scientific respectability and a false rightfulness.

“The Preservation of Favoured Races...”

Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin was never a racist but that racists comment on Darwin’s ideas in a biased manner for the purpose of supporting their own views. They claim that the expression “By the Preservation of Favoured Races” in the subtitle to the Origin of Species is used only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book.

According to the views put forward by Darwin in this book, human races represent different stages of evolution, and some races have evolved and progressed more than others. Some of them, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as monkeys.

Darwin claimed that the “fight for survival” also applied between human races. “Favoured races” emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favoured race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival. Darwin went even further: these races would soon completely lose the world-wide fight for survival and disappear, he claimed.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. the break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”2

Again in another part of the Origin of Species, Darwin claimed that it was necessary for the inferior races to disappear and that there was no need for developed peoples to try to protect them and keep them alive. He compared this situation to people who raised breeding animals:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.”3

As we have seen, in his book the Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races, which he saw as “inferior,” he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination, which we still come across in our time, were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.

As for the task befalling the “civilised person,” according to Darwin’s racist idea, it was to speed this evolutionary period up a little, as we shall see in the details that follow. In this situation there was no objection, from the “scientific” point of view, to these races, which were going to disappear anyway, being done away with now.

Darwin’s racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures “wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions”. Whereas the researcher W. P. Snow, who had travelled the same region ten years before, presents a very different picture. According to Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were “fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artifacts were ingenious; they recognized some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the author-

As has been seen from these examples Darwin was a complete racist. As a matter of fact, in the words of the author of the book What Darwin Really Said, Benjamin Farrington, Darwin made many comments regarding “the greater differences between men of distinct races” in his book the Descent of Man.5

Furthermore, Darwin’s theory’s denying the existence of God had been the cause of peoples’ not seeing that man was something created by God and that all men were created equal. and this was one of the factors behind the rise of racism and the acceleration of its acceptance in the world. the American scientist James Ferguson announces the strict link between the denial of Creation and the rise of racism in this way:

“The new anthropology soon became a theoretical background between two opposed schools of thought on the origin of humans. the older and more established of these was ‘monogenism,’ the belief that all humankind, irrespective of color and other characteristics, was directly descended from Adam and from the single and original act of God’s Creation. Monogenism was promulgated by the Church and universally accepted until the 18th century, when opposition to theological authority began to fuel the rival theory of ‘polygenism,’ (theory of evolution) which held that different racial communities had different origins.”6

According to Darwin human races represent different stages of evolution and some races have envolved and progresses more than others.

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin’s theory of evolution led racism to be accepted by social sciences:

“His (Darwin’s) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man’s civilization. by the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.”7

As for the Darwinists who came after Darwin, they put up a great struggle to prove his racist views. In the name of doing so they had no scruples about making many scientific inconsistencies and falsehoods. They thought that when they had proved these, they would have scientifically proven their own superiority and “rights” to oppress, colonize, and if needs be exterminate other races.

In the third chapter of his book the Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the “superiority” of the white race. According to Gould, the method they used most was falsifying the brain size of the fossilized skulls they found. Gould mentions in his book that, assuming brain size had something to do with intelligence, many anthropologists intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians.8

In his book Ever Since Darwin, Gould explains the perverted claims the Darwinists undertook to demonstrate that some races were inferior. Haeckel and his colleagues also invoked recapitulation to affirm the racial superiority of northern European whites. They scoured the evidence of human anatomy and behavior, using everything they could find from brains to belly buttons. Herbert Spencer wrote that “the intellectual traits of the uncivilized... are traits recurring in the children of the civilized.” Carl Vogt said it more strongly in 1864: “The grown up Negro partakes, as regards his intellectual faculties, of the nature of the child… Some tribes have founded states, possessing a peculiar organization, but, as to the rest, we may boldly assert that the whole race has, neither in the past nor in the present, performed anything tending to the progress of humanity or worthy of preservation.”9 and the French medical anatomist Etienne Serres really did argue that black males are primitive because their belly buttons were in a lower level.

Darwin’s contemporary, the evolutionist Havelock Ellis, supported the distinction between superior and inferior races with an alleged “scientific” explanation, saying:

“The child of many African races is scarcely if at all less intelligent than the European child, but while the African as he grows up becomes stupid and obtuse, and his whole social life falls into a state of hidebound routine, the European retains much of his childlike vivacity.”10

The French Darwinist anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge suggested that non-white classes were the descendants of savages who had not learnt to be civilised, or else the degenerate representatives of mixed-blood classes. He produced results by measuring the skulls from Paris’ upper and lower classes in graveyards. According to his results, depending on their skulls some people were inclined to be rich, self-confident, and free, and others conservative, content with little, and possessing all the qualities of a good servant, classes were the products of social selection, society’s upper classes went together with superior races, the degree of wealth was in proportion to the skull index.

And it was not only anthropologists: entomologists (those who study insects) also jumped on the racist bandwagon that Darwinism had set in motion with perverted claims. For example, in the year 1861, one English entomologist arrived at the conclusion, after collecting lice that lived on peoples’ bodies in different parts of the world, that the lice of one race could not live on the bodies of another, which when looked at from the scientific level of today, is just plain ridiculous.12 When even people with the status of scientists made such announcements, it was not surprising that some dogmatic racists should use such illogical, unintelligent, and completely meaningless slogans as “even Negroes’ lice are Negro.”

In short, the racist side to Darwin’s theory found very fertile ground in the second half of the 19th century.


  1. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Man’s Origin Man’s Destiny, the Word for Today Publishing, 1993, p.166
  2. Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, a L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178
  3. Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, a L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 171 4Godfrey Lienhardt, Social Anthropology, Oxford University Press, p. 11
  4. Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Really Said, London: Sphere Books, 1971, pp. 54-56
  5. James Ferguson, “The Laboratory of Racism”, New Scientist, vol. 103, (September 1984, p. 18)
  6. Lalita Prasad Vidyarthi, Racism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Unesco, France, Vendôme, 1983. p. 54
  7. David N. Menton, Ph.D., the Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism, St. Louis MetroVoice, September 1994, Vol. 4, No. 9 9Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 1992, p. 217
  8. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 1992, p. 220
  9. Alaeddin Şenel, Irk ve Irkçılık Düşüncesi (The Idea of Race and Racism), Ankara:Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, 1993, p. 67-68
  10. Thomas Gossett, Race: the History of an Idea in America, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p.81 cited in Alaeddin Şenel, Irk ve Irkçılık Düşüncesi (The Idea of Race and Racism), Ankara:Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, 1993, p. 68

Ginko Leaf
65-74 Million Year
Paleocence Period
Sentinel Butte, North Dakota

Plos One Journal Finally Admitted: “Lucy Is Not an Ancestor of Man, She Is an Ape”

The 3.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in Africa in 1974, popularly known as “Lucy”, has been periodically brought up for propaganda purposes. However, with the ever-growing means of science and technology, it has become evident that this fossil, which had been long alleged to be “evidence” for the theory of evolution, has actually dealt a devastating blow to the theory.

Although the Lucy fossil is supposedly portrayed as a transitional form specimen representing the so-called evolution from ape to man, it has in fact proven this claim to be a scenario based on mere prejudice.

Today, all the international scientific journals with a board of academics are, one by one, saying their goodbyes to Lucy. Now, let us take a look at some of the confessions about Lucy featured in journals from the past until today:

Evolutionists’ Confession in 1999: “ADIEU LUCY” In May 1999, the well-recognized Science et Vie journal used the title “Adieu Lucy” (Goodbye Lucy) on its cover and wrote that the apes of the Australopithecus genus should be removed from human genealogy. the article, written upon a new Australopithecus fossil discovery code-named St W573, included the following statements:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch.

However, this farewell was not limited to Science et Vie journal. After that, confessions on the fossil known as “Lucy” kept coming with each passing day.

Evolutionists’ Confession In 2000: “We Should Stop Bringing Lucy Up”

Another article published in 2000 in the journal Nature confessed that Lucy was a member of an ape species. the article wrote that the Lucy fossil, with respect to her “relatively long and curved fingers, relatively long arms, and funnel-shaped chest” was exactly like chimpanzees. Upon the close examination of its hand bones, the confession came that contrary to what had been previously claimed, Lucy was not bipedal, but “knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas do today.”1

The ape-like features of the Lucy fossil are not limited to its way of walking and hand bone structure only. Its chin is U-shaped, identical to those of ape species, and teeth are quite large compared to humans.

Anthropologists from Tel Aviv University have also pointed out that the upward-projecting mandible (mandibular ramus) on Lucy’s lower jaw is very similar to that of gorillas, and thereupon, researchers advocating the theory of evolution have consented that keeping the Lucy fossil on the agenda will not serve their interests.2

Evolutionists’ Confession in 2016: “Lucy Is a Chimpanzee”

Discovered in Africa 1974, Popularly Known as “Lucy”

A more recent study on Lucy published in the November 2016 issue of PLOS One gave the same results. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the University of Texas, who micro-CT scanned Lucy’s skeleton by tomography, admitted that much of Lucy’s life had been spent in trees and that, from this aspect, it resembled a chimpanzee more than a human being.3

John Kappelman, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, examined Lucy’s skeleton at the National Museum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and interpreted it as follows:

“I think that by demonstrating with an independent data set that Lucy very likely spent enough time in the trees that the evidence is preserved in her bones provides additional support for the idea that she may have fallen out of a tree as well... She (Lucy) comes out showing a similarity to chimpanzees which suggests that was due to climbing.” 4

However, these facts revealed by modern technology were already known at the time of the fossil’s discovery. In a speech at the University of Missouri, Kansas City on November 20, 19865, Dr. Johanson claimed they had found a knee bone and asserted their allegations that Lucy is the ancestor of man based on this bone. In response to this claim, one of the participants (Roy Holt) asked Johanson, “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” Dr. Johanson answered, “About 200 feet lower and two to three kilometers away.” Continuing, when he was asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” he answered, “Anatomical similarity”. But this answer was met with cynicism because of the scientific inconsistency it posed. the scientific world was already aware of the fact that even completely different species such as dogs and bearsing it under the light of advanced science and technology. to date, circles that advocate evolutionary theory for ideological reasons have made a number of fossil forgeries and fictitious claims. However, not even a single one of these allegations have been proven scientifically, while on the other hand, their fallacy has been consistently demonstrated.

Fossilized Skull Belonged to An Ape

There is only one fact that 21st Century science shows us: Living beings have neither gone through evolution nor gradually transformed from one species to another as a result of blind chance. could bear anatomical similarities.

As is seen, Lucy has been promoted as ‘man’s socalled ancestor’ for 43 years through a specially devised, biased propaganda, even though it was widely known that the fossilized skull belonged to an ape since the moment of its discovery.The entire world was indoctrinated as if it was the ‘so-called ‘missing link’ between man and ape. However, this unscientific and non-factual supposition has been repeatedly disproved in every means of study-

Modern life forms and their millions-year-old counterparts all share the same appearance. They did not undergo even a single change despite the millions of years that have passed in between. They have retained the same features as they have today since the moment they came into existence. Living things did not appear on earth through millions of years of evolution but they came into existence suddenly, with all the features they possess intact in their bodies. In other words, they were created by God.

“We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who deny…” (Qur’an, 38:27)


  1. Mark Collard and Leslie C. Aiello, “From forelimbs to two legs,” Nature (March 23, 2000), 404:339–340.
  2. Siegel-Itzkovich, Judy, Israeli Researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans, the Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci-Tech/Science-And-Environment/Israeli-researchers-Lucy-is-not-direct-ancestor-of-humans
  3. Christopher B. Ruff , M. Loring Burgess, Richard A. Ketcham, John Kappelman. Limb Bone Structural Proportions and Locomotor Behavior in A.L. 288-1 (“Lucy”). PLOS ONE, 2016 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166095
  4. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2016/11/30/the-latest-on-lucy-early-hominin-spent-serious-time-in-trees/#.WHfotBuLSUk
  5. http://spiritualcoretheory.com/lucy-fails-test-as-missing-link/

95 Million Years
Cretaceous Period
Hakel, Lebanon

What Does the Fact That We Share the Same Diseases with Neanderthals Mean?

In its February 12, 2016, issue, Science magazine published the results of a new study conducted at Vanderbilt University, USA. Although at first sight the article appeared to be about inherited diseases, the title, “The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals,” showed that it contained evolutionist propaganda.

John A. Capra, a geneticist from Vanderbilt University who headed the research, made the following comparison: “We discovered and replicated associations of Neandertal alleles with neurological, psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes. ... Our results establish that archaic admixture influences disease risk in modern humans…”

This statement by Capra that Neanderthals shared similar diseases to us is an important one, and evidence that, in fact, refutes the theory of evolution.

Different Cultures and Different Physical Characteristics

Man has been exposed to various diseases down the ages, and genetic features of these have come down to the present day by being handed on from one generation to another. Such genetic sensitivities, described as “inherited,” strengthen the probability of that disease appearing, but it is meaningless to herald this as evidence of evolution.

Different human societies have lived in different places throughout history, and these societies have sometimes come together and interbred. the situation we see in Anatolia today or in the USA are stark examples of this: Asian, European and African people have intermarried and intermingled.

The point requiring attention here is that despite individual differences, these people are all “human.” the fact they possess different cultures or physical properties does not make them distinct life forms or mean that they have to be classified as “advanced” or “primitive.” Such thinking is erroneous and racist. However, some people trying to justify the colonialist policies of the 19thcentury in the legal sphere claimed that the “White European” race (Germanic and Anglo-Saxon) was the “most modern” and “most highly developed” of the current human races. the result was the idea that the indigenous populations of Africa and Australia were supposedly closer to animals, and led to the development of the unbelievable idea that their elimination would make a positive contribution to the development of mankind, according to the processes of evolution.

The Scourge of Racism That Began with Haeckel

Living things were first classified by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who placed white Europeans at the top of this classification of his own invention. This perverse and evolutionist view of Haeckel’s came to be accepted as “the role of the races in the progress of civilizations.”

The concept of race was first proposed by a German physician, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840). He classified mankind under five headings – Caucasian (the white race), Mongolian (the yellow race), Malayan (the brown race), Ethiopian (the black race) and American (the red race): Haeckel arranged this concept of race on a hierarchical basis, placing Europeans at the top, while placing the Vedda people indigenous to Sri Lanka, Aboriginal Australians and the natives of Rhodesia in present-day Zimbabwe at the bottom. These ideas were so influential that many racists foolishly described marrying such people and having children with them as “falling off the evolutionary ladder” and even suggested that this would be exceedingly damaging to mankind as a whole.

Similar to these preposterous ideas from the past, some supporters of evolution are currently seeking to portray the admixture with Neanderthals as something undesirable. This is of course a grave error, and the scientific evidence shows that Neanderthals were fully-fledged human beings. At this point, it will be useful to remind people of some of the scientific evidence concerning the invalidity of the Darwinist mentality that seeks to portray Neanderthals as “primitive:”

The Neanderthals Had Superior Characteristics to Those of Present-Day Humans


Their large skull size refutes the Darwinist idea of the Neanderthals as “primitive man.” the volume of the Neanderthal skull was approximately 1700 cc, which is some 200 cc larger than that of a present-day man. This demolishes the evolutionist idea of classifying human beings as primitive or advanced based on skull volumes. According to the basic principles of evolutionist ideology, Neanderthals, with their larger brains, should be regarded as superior to present-day man, and that would represent an enormous contradiction for the theory of evolution.

In addition, archeological research has shown that the Neanderthal’s social lives were no different to those of present-day humans. the Neanderthals were a human race that has since become extinct. Erik Trinkaus, an expert on the Neanderthals, admits this as follows:

“… there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. …” (Erik Trinkaus, “Hard Times Among the Neanderthals”, Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10.)

There is no doubt that because the Neanderthals were a human race, they possessed the same features as modern races. Neanderthal Man was a talented maker of tools and a skilled hunter. He even engaged in music and art. They had a cultural and social structure, just as societies do today, and had religious beliefs. (Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 194) the civilization established by the Neanderthals was therefore no fundamentally different to present-day civilizations.

What Does the Fact We Share the Same Genes as the Neanderthals Mean?

First and foremost, it is genetically impossible to describe Neanderthals as a separate species.

The Neanderthal genome project has revealed that, like us, they had 23 pairs of chromosomes. What we see in evolutionist sources, however, is the bafflement on the part of Darwinists in the face of this finding that we share common genes; Darwinists have long described the Neanderthals as a separate species. the discovery that we shared the same disease genes of course means that we are disposed to the same diseases. to say that these genes have passed down to us from the Neanderthals is a natural hereditary outcome; these genes are not specific to the Neanderthals, but are quite widespread among all humans.

The Neanderthals Were Not a Primitive Species, but Human Beings like Us

The social life of the Neanderthals was no different to that of human beings alive today. Archeological research has revealed that this human race used musical instruments, sewed clothes and engaged in artistic endeavors such as painting and sculpture. Indeed, in terms of physical features, the Neanderthals were superior to us; their bodies were larger and stronger, and, contrary to the claims of evolution, their brains were larger than ours.

Different Races: Geographic Isolation and Humans with Different Appearances

People living in different parts of the world naturally look different to one another: In other words, they have different phenotypes; this is known as geographic isolation. Aborigines, Eskimos and Africans live in very different regions far from one another yet these races and the white European race all share common genes.

Europeans, who have enjoyed more advanced technology and material means throughout the course of history, have always described other races whom they do not like the look of as “backward,” and have always regarded themselves as “modern” and hence, superior to everyone else. In practical terms, this racist mindset that found an alleged justification in Darwinian ideology has represented the foundations for genocide, colonialism, systematic and ruthless exploitation and served as a rationalization for treating those who were different to themselves with the utmost contempt.

Conclusion: the Neanderthals Are An Ancient Human People

The way that evolutionists classify different human races as “advanced” or “primitive” is devoid of any genetic or biological foundation. Indeed, archeological findings have shown that Neanderthals possessed a highly social civilization. It is abundantly obvious that they were no different to present-day human races.


6 / total 12
You can read Harun Yahya's book The Origin of Life and the Universe - 2nd International Conference 2017 online, share it on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, download it to your computer, use it in your homework and theses, and publish, copy or reproduce it on your own web sites or blogs without paying any copyright fee, so long as you acknowledge this site as the reference.
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 author “Mr. Adnan Oktar”.
(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