The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull.

1. "Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!" Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey.
2. "There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies." Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was. ([14], p.?)
3. "`We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? `Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History. ([10], p.74)
4. Several of the supposed finds have relied on mere tooth or jaw fragments. These include Piltdown man, Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Hesperopithecus. (see picture #1) ([9], p.42; [15], p.44)
   

   Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

   Picture #1: Ramapithecus, considered the first `hominid' for twenty years by evolutionists, was based only on these teeth. ([14], p.212)

5. Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years. (picture #2) ([8], p.24-25)
   

   Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

   Picture #2: Scientists often demonstrate an utter inability to interpret their finds with any accuracy. This hoax, a human skull placed with an ape jaw, was not recognized as a hoax by the field for forty five years. During this time, they declared it to the public as being a human ancestor. ([8], p.25)

6. Ramapithecus lasted twenty years as considered to be the first in-between of humans and apes by judgment based only on teeth. He is now know to be an extinct baboon. (picture #1)
7. Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years. (picture #3)
   

   Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

   Picture #:3 Evolutionists often base their conclusions on such small `evidences' as a single tooth. They reconstruct creatures on this basis alone as pictured here.

8. Similarly, hominids (supposed in betweens) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc. (see picture #4) ([12], p.111; [2], p.51; [9], p.157)
   

   Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

   Picture #4: An example of the poor evidence that evolutionists use is this hip bone `find' that they say marked a `hominid'.

9. Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey.
10. The famous find named Lucy placed together looked nothing more than picture #5 yet it was regarded as a hominid without reservation.
    

    Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

    Picture #5: Popular `finds' were often based on nothing more than this and even these bones were not even found together or from the same individual. ([8], p.57)

11. Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away." ([3], p.83)
12. Regarding the finder of Lucy we read, "...he regards the evolution of man from apes as self-evident, but who also regards the evidence as poppycock."
13. Rarely do they even know if the bone set is from the same individual.
14. The Boisei skull was broken in 400 pieces but pieced together and declared as all from the same skull.
15. Regarding the reconstructive drawings always made of these finds we note, "Well-known anthropologist E.A. Hooten has said that from a Neanderthal skull an artist can fashion the features of a chimpanzee or a philosopher and that it is wise to `...put not your faith in reconstructions.'"
16. In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top (picture #6) unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever.
    

    Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

    Picture #6: This skull actually has a crest on the top (as ape skulls only, right picture) but it was declared as a human ancestor. ([2], p.139)

17. The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after.
18. Paleontologists have called simple rocks as hominid tools. (picture #7)
    

    Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

    Picture #7: These simple rocks are actually declared by evolutionists to be tools of `hominids'. ([12], p.100,105)

19. Even bones and teeth were picked as tools of hominids. (picture #8)
    

    Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

    Picture #8: Evolutionists have declared nondescript bone and tooth remains to be tools of `hominids'. Pictured is one evolutionist demonstrating its use. ([8], p.59)

20. The most non-descript footprints were called those of hominids. (picture #9)
    

    Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

    Picture #9: These footprints were actually declared by evolutionists as those of `hominids'.

21. Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. This made virtually all the paleontologist's dates wrong and made all the posited bushes of human origins incorrect. ([15], p.130-131)
22. "(That modern humans evolved in many different areas at the same time) is theoretically implausible based on current knowledge (in population genetics)." Popular geneticist Shahin Rouhani ([15], p.133)
23. Famous Paleontologist Roger Lewin admits, "The mitochondrial DNA technique appears to support the Noah's Ark hypothesis (that we originated from one set of people at the same location not many people and places as the evolutionists concluded). ([15], p.130-131)
24. Outside the strict fossil evidence, therefore, each branch of scientific analysis that has focused on the origin of modern humans - mitochondrial DNA, population genetics, ecology - has cast its vote to replacement, the Noah's Ark Hypothesis.
25. The paleontologist dates had to be changed. They had hominids dating as far back as 63 million years.
26. Biochemists and Molecular Biologists note that inferring relationships from fossils was "Fraught with potential error." ([14], p.105)
27. Sarich put it bluntly, "...it (a fossil) could not be (a hominid), because it was too old." ([13], p.76)
28. Paleontologists were slow to admit their errors or even look at any of the data. At first they just "...trimmed (their) dates...just in case there was something in it (the biochemistry data)." Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam ([14], p.116). Wilson stated that the paleontologists "...functioned as if we did not exist. They just ignored us." ([14], p.116)
29. After fifteen years, the paleontologists reluctantly accepted the biochemistry evidence. "We anthropologists were forced to admit we had been wrong and that Sarich and Wilson were closer to the right track than any of us had even imagined." Paleontologist Richard Leakey. ([13], p.78)
30. Paleontologists had been producing a new lineage every 10 - 20 years for 60 years. ([21], p.186) They could not draw these since, "To put it crudely, the appearance in a single species of a combination of characteristics some of which appear early...while others appear late." ([15], p.76)
31. Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam, regarding two of the finds now known not to be hominids, observes, "We should have been aware how flimsy our original arguments had been and that should have made us more cautious. But it didn't." ([14], p.100)
32. "That 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples is significant negative evidence." ([11], p.84)