EVRİMCİLERİN 'MASKESİ DÜŞTÜ' Rekonstrüksiyonların gerçekleri yansıtmadığı bir kez daha kanıtlandı

New Scientist dergisinin 3 Haziran 2006 tarihli sayısında, Debora Mackenzie imzalı, "Kafatasına Yüz Yerleştirmek" başlıklı bir makale yayınlandı. Makalede, kafataslarından yola çıkılarak yapılan rekonstrüksiyonların güvenilmezliği konu edilmekteydi. Alman polisinin yaptığı bir araştırmadan yola çıkılarak hazırlanan bu makale, evrimcilerin insanın hayali evrimi konusundaki propagandalarının önemli bir bölümünü teşkil eden "rekonstrüksiyonların" bilimsel açıdan geçersizliğini bir kez daha gözler önüne sermektedir.

Bir kafatası için 21 araştırmacıdan 21 ayrı yüz

Söz konusu makalede aktarıldığına göre, 2003 yılının Ocak ayında Alman polisi, Hannover'in kuzeyinde Celle bölgesindeki bir ormanda bir kafatası buldu. Kafatasının sahibinin erkek olduğu, öldüğünde 56 yaşlarında olduğu tespit edilebildi. Ne var ki, bulunduktan iki yıl geçmesine rağmen kafatasının kimliği hala tespit edilememişti. Tam da bu dönemde, Almanya'da bir konferans düzenleniyordu. Konferansın davetlileri, sadece kafatasına dayanarak bir insanın yüzünü belirleme konusunda uzman olan adli sanat uzmanlarıydı. Polis, bu imkanı değerlendirmek istedi ve Celle kafatasının sahibini tespit edebilmek için bu konferansa katılan araştırmacıların yardımını istedi. Tam 21 araştırmacı bu talebe olumlu cevap verdi ve kafatasının rekonstrüksiyonunu ortaya çıkarmak için çalışmaya başladı. Sözkonusu çalışmaların sonuçları, üç yıl kadar sonra Belçika'nın Leuven şehrinde düzenlenen "Yumuşak Yüz Kısımlarının Tekrar İnşası" konulu uluslararası konferansta sunuldu.Ne var ki, 2006 yılının Mayıs ayında yayınlanan bu sonuçlar hiç de polisin beklediği gibi değildi. 21 araştırmacının elde ettiği 21 yüz, birbirinden tamamen farklıydı. (Bkz. Resim 1).  Dolayısıyla Celle kafatasının kimliği belirlenemedi.

Celle kafatası üzerinde sürdürülen çalışmalar, bu alanda uzman 21 araştırmacının birlikte yürüttüğü, en ileri teknik ve teknolojilerin kullanıldığı çalışmalardır. Kafatasının kemikleri eksiksiz olmasına, konunun uzmanlarınca en ileri imkanlar kullanılarak çalışılmasına rağmen ortaya birbirinden farklı 21 yüz rekonstrüksiyonu çıkarması,  kafataslarından yola çıkılarak tasarlanan yüzlerin, gerçekleri yansıtmadığının en açık delillerindendir, Bu yüzler objektif bilimsel kriterlere değil, yüzleri tekrar inşa eden sanatçıların sezgilerine ve hayal güçlerine dayanılarak elde edilmektedir.

Nitekim New Scientist dergisinde bu sonuçlar üzerine rekonstrüksiyon tekniği için şu yorum yapılmaktadır:

"Her ne kadar zor vakalar için yüz rekonstrüksiyonları yaygın olarak kullanılsa da, bu günümüze dek bu teknik için yapılmış en geniş çaplı deneydi. Bu deney açık olarak göstermektedir ki, bu alan bilimden çok bir sanat olarak kalmaktadır. İngiltere'de Dundee Üniversitesi'nden adli antropolog Caroline Wilkinson, bu değişmeli diyor ve "kurallarla çalışmalıyız sezgilerle değil" diye ekliyor." (vurgu bize ait)

New Scientist'teki bu yazı aynı zamanda evrimci propaganda hakkında önemli bir ikaz oluşturmaktadır. Çünkü evrimciler, özellikle insanın evrimi propagandasında rekonstrüksiyonlardan yaygın olarak faydalanmaktadırlar. Bunu ise, rekonstrüksiyon bir yüzün bilimsel olarak doldurulamayan boşluklarını kendi önyargılarıyla doldurarak yapmaktadırlar.

Bilimin boşluklarına evrimci önyargılar

New Scientist yazısının kapanış satırlarında, kafatası kemikleriyle yüz dokusu arasında bilimsel olarak güvenilir bir ilişki bulunmadığı belirtilmekte, örneğin kafatasının şeklinin üst dudağın şekli hakkında hiçbir öngörü sunmadığı ifade edilmektedir. İngiltere'deki Manchester Üniversitesi'nden Richard Neave bu gerçeği "[Rekonstrüksiyon bir] Yüzde, bilimin dolduramayacağı birçok boşluk vardır" sözleriyle yorumlamaktadır. İşte evrimci propaganda Neave'ın sözünü ettiği "bilimsel olarak doldurulamayan boşluklar"dan faydalanmakta, evrimci rekonstrüksiyon sanatçıları bu boşlukları kendi önyargılarıyla doldurmaktadırlar. Bir kafatasının kemikleri, ait olduğu canlının dudak ve kulak yapısı ya da bakışları hakkında hiçbir bilgi vermediği halde evrimci rekonstrüksiyon sanatçıları bunları yarı insan yarı maymun özellikte inşa etmektedirler. Bu konuda akla gelen çarpıcı bir örnek, rekonstrüksiyon sanatçısı John Gurche'nin, National Geographic dergisinde yayınlanan sözleridir. Gurche, maymun adam rekonstrüksiyonları evrimci yayınlarda sık sık yayınlanan bir sanatçıdır. National Geographic ise rekonstrüksiyona dayalı propagandaya dünyada belki de en yoğun şekilde başvuran evrimci yayındır. Gurche, National Geographic'in Mart 1996 sayısında yayınlanan bir makalede soyu tükenmiş bir maymunun yüz (Australopithecus afarensis) rekonstrüksiyonu ve ona kazandırdığı bakışlar hakkında yorumlar yapmaktadır. Gurche'nin sözleri, rekonstrüksiyon yüzleri çizen evrimci önyargıları açığa vurur niteliktedir:

"Bu maymunsu yüze bir insan ruhu kazandırmak, neye yöneldiği hakkında birşey göstermek istedim". 1

Rekonstrüksiyonlar, evrimci propaganda için büyük bir önem taşımaktadır. Gazetelerde, dergilerde ve televizyonda gördüğümüz hayali maymun adamların birçoğu, bulunan kafatası fosillerinden, hatta tek bir kemik parçasından "esinlenerek" çizilen veya maketi yapılan rekonstrüksiyonlardır. Evrimciler, teorilerini destekleyecek bilimsel deliller bulamadıkları için, teoriyi propaganda ile ayakta tutmaya çalışmaktadırlar ve rekonstrüksiyonlar bu propagandanın önemli bir parçasıdır. Celle kafatasıyla ilgili gelişmeler rekonstrüksiyonların güvenilmezliğini ortaya koymakla evrimci propagandanın geçersizliğini bir kez daha göstermektedir.

Bu noktada rekonstrüksiyona dayalı evrimci propaganda hakkında önemli noktaları kısaca hatırlayacak olursak, insanın kökeni ile ilgili fosil kayıtları çoğu zaman dağınık ve eksik oldukları için, bunlara dayanarak herhangi bir tahminde bulunmak, bütünüyle hayal gücüne dayalı bir iştir. Bu yüzden evrimciler tarafından fosil kalıntılarına dayanılarak yapılan rekonstrüksiyonlar, tamamen evrim ideolojisinin gereklerine uygun olarak tasarlanırlar. Harvard Üniversitesi antropologlarından David Pilbeam, "Benim uğraştığım paleoantropoloji alanında daha önce edinilmiş izlenimlerden oluşmuş teori, daima gerçek verilere baskın çıkar." derken bu gerçeği vurgular.2  İnsanlar görsel yoldan daha kolay etkilendikleri için amaç onları, hayal gücüyle rekonstrüksiyonu yapılmış yaratıkların geçmişte gerçekten yaşadığına inandırabilmektir.

Evrimciler hayali rekonstrüksiyonlarında o denli ileri gitmektedirler ki, aynı fosil kafatasına kimi zaman birbirinden çok farklı yüzler yakıştırabilmektedirler. Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) adlı fosil için çizilen birbirinden tamamen farklı üç ayrı rekonstrüksiyon, bunun ünlü bir örneğidir.

Burada bir noktaya dikkat etmek gerekir: Kemik kalıntılarına dayanılarak yapılan çalışmalarda sadece eldeki objenin çok genel özellikleri ortaya çıkarılabilir. Oysa asıl belirleyici ayrıntılar, zaman içinde kolayca yok olan yumuşak dokulardır. Evrime inanmış bir kimsenin bu yumuşak dokuları istediği gibi şekillendirip ortaya hayali bir yaratık çıkarması çok kolaydır. Harvard Üniversitesi'nden Earnst A. Hooton bu durumu şöyle açıklar:

Yumuşak kısımların tekrar inşası çok riskli bir girişimdir. Dudaklar, gözler, kulaklar ve burun gibi organların altlarındaki kemikle hiçbir bağlantıları yoktur. Örneğin bir Neandertal kafatasını aynı yorumla bir maymuna veya bir filozofa benzetebilirsiniz. Eski insanların kalıntılarına dayanarak yapılan canlandırmalar hemen hiçbir bilimsel değere sahip değillerdir ve toplumu yönlendirmek amacıyla kullanılırlar... Bu sebeple rekonstrüksiyonlara fazla güvenilmemelidir.3

Sonuç

New Scientist'teki bu yazı, rekonstrüksiyon çalışmalarının bilimden çok sanat olduğunu, kafatasıyla yüz dokusu arasında bilimsel kabul edilebilecek hiçbir tahmin edilebilir bağlantı bulunmadığını açıkça ortaya koymaktadır. Onlarca uzman en ileri teknolojileri ve teknikleri kullanmalarına karşın rekonstrüksiyonlarla ilgili bilimsel bir yöntem geliştirme çabalarında başarısız olmuşlardır. Rekonstrüksiyon yüzlerde bilimsellik olmadığını ortaya koyan bu gelişme, aynı zamanda evrimci propagandanın bilimsellik maskesini de bir kez daha düşürmektedir.  

TOWARDS AN END TO THE FLORES MAN DECEPTION


Another evolutionist propaganda storm is coming to an end in the face of contradictory evidence and increasing objections.

On 23 May, 2006, the Ntvmsnbc.com news portal carried a report headed “Debate over the truth of the Hobbit.” The report contained the latest study regarding Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the “hobbit” (*) by the media, and some views concerning it.

Readers will recall that Homo floresiensis, discovered in the cave of Liang Bua on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003, stirred up considerable reaction in both the media and the scientific world, even being described as a “revolution in anthropology.” It was estimated that the bones unearthed belonged to eight individuals and dated back between 95,000-12.000 years. The feature that made Flores man the subject of such great interest was its small brain volume and short stature. Scientists calculated that these human beings were around 1 metre (3 feet) tall with a brain approximately 400 cubic centimetres (24 cubic inches) in size (comparable to a grapefruit).

The Ntvmsnbc.com report concerned the latest developments in the debate over the factor leading to such small brain dimensions. It described the latest developments in these terms:

“It was suggested that the skeletons belonging to the hominid Hobbit discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 in fact belonged to native peoples living in the region … It is suggested that the skeletons, believed to belong to a hominid known as the Hobbit, belonged to a human being with a genetic disease. The Hobbit skeleton found on the island of Flores attracted great interest from the scientific world. It is estimated that the dwarfish human known as Homo floresiensis lived isolated in the island jungle, far from other people, until the 1900s.” (Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.

These developments are important as confirming a point we have been raising on our website since the very outset: The claim that Flores Man represents a separate species is a deception resorted to in the light of the need to keep the theory of evolution alive. The “species” division inferred from the bones is a veil with which evolutionists seek to pull the wool over society’s eyes and is based on no scientific criteria permitting any claim of objectivity.

The details of these new developments are considered below, and the collapse of the evolutionist propaganda regarding Flores Man is demonstrated. Before that, however, a brief look at the debate over Homo floresiensis’s small brain volume and body dimensions, and the parties involved, will not go amiss.

The scientists who made and reported the discovery described Flores Man as a species distinct from Homo sapiens on the basis of its comparatively small dimensions. According to this totally imaginary claim, Flores Man was one of the descendants of Homo erectus and had emerged as a separate species by being isolated and shrinking in size on the island of Flores. Other scientists subsequently later opposed this view, objecting that Flores Man was actually a sub-species of Homo sapiens, in other words an ancient race of human beings, and that those small dimensions stemmed from the disease microcephaly (1, 2, 3). According to this view, these people’s brains had failed to develop as the result of a genetic impairment, remaining very small. Since microcephaly is a genetic disorder that is more prevalent in isolated populations it was understandable that short stature should be observed in all the Flores specimens belonging to eight individuals.

A team led by the Florida State University anthropologist Dean Falk, one of the proponents of the separate species claim, conducted a study in the face of this development and sought to object to the microcephalic explanation. The team compared the Homo floresiensis skull with those of great apes, Homo erectus (For further information, please visit Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links. ) , Homo sapiens (For further information, please visit Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links. ), Australopithecus africanus (For further information, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links. ) and Paranthropus aethiopicus, a pygmy and a microcephalic human and claimed that Homo floresiensis’s small skull size was not the result of microcephaly and that it was a distinct species from Homo sapiens. (Dean Falk et al., “The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis”, Science, Vol. 308. no. 5719, 3 March 2005, pp. 242 – 245)


The response of Martin’s team to Falk’s team:

The developments referred to on Ntvmsnbc.com concern a technical response to Falk and her team by another team led by the Field Museum of Chicago primatologist Robert D. Martin in the 19 May, 2006, edition of the prestigious scientific journal Science. In the paper in question, Martin and his team published a technical analysis concerning Homo floresiensis (Flores Man). (Robert D. Martin et al., Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis", Science, Vol. 312. no. 5776, 19 May 2006, p. 999) Martin and his supporters put forward evidence from comparative anatomy to the effect that the small brain size of Flores Man can be explained in terms of the microcephaly seen in today’s human beings, as well as revealing weaknesses and deficiencies in Falk’s research. Falk, whose claims had thus been undermined, described the criticisms as superficial, but was unable to provide any concrete response to them. (Dean Falk et al., “Response to Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis", Science, Vol. 312. no. 5776, 19 May 2006, p. 999)

Martin and his team wrote the following in the summary section of their article that demolished Falk’s results:

Endocast analysis of the brain Homo floresiensis by Falk etal. (Reports, 8 April 2005, p. 242) implies that the hominid is an insular dwarf derived from H. erectus, but its tiny cranial capacity cannot result from normal dwarfing. Consideration of more appropriate microcephalic syndromes and specimens supports the hypothesis of modern human microcephaly. (Robert D. Martin et al, ibid.)

In their paper, the research team showed that the island dwarfism parameters seen in mammals in particular excluded Homo floresiensis. To put it another way, the small brain and body dimensions of Homo floresiensis were not of a level that could result from island dwarfism.

Responses to the dwarfism claim

It is a known fact that mammal species living on islands are smaller than their counterparts living on the mainland. During this process, living things separated from the mainland population due to geographic isolation gradually become physically smaller on account of the restricted food resources available. Various fossils obtained on islands constitute excellent examples of this. For example, fossils of elephants a mere 1 metre in height have been uncovered on islands such as Sicily and Malta, and it has been estimated that these were stuck on the islands and separated from elephants 4 metres in height, and shrank in size in as little as 5,000 years. (Lister A., et al. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 69. 277 - 292 (1996); Marta Mirazon Lahr & Robert Foley, "Human evolution writ small", 27 October 2004, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links. (This “dwarfism” is not “evolution,” of course. Because a living thing exposed to dwarfism does not acquire new, genetically based features. In the same way that a pocket radio developed by engineers has merely been reduced in size and acquires no new technology, of the kind that might turn it into a television, for instance, so a living thing exposed to dwarfism has not undergone evolution.)

In addition, island dwarfism exhibits certain average parameters. The levels of brain and body shrinkage are more or less fixed, and the body decreases in size relatively more than the brain. Ann MacLarnon from Roehampton University, a member of Martin’s team, modelled the dwarfism forms of various mammals, from dogs to elephants and compared them with the human beings. Based on these data, the scientists emphasize that the skeleton brain is very small for a dwarf hominid; so much so, in fact, they state that a brain volume of 400 cc could only occur in a person 30 cm tall. MacLarnon also states that a dwarf Homo erectus would be expected to weigh a mere 2 kilograms, and that this is at least one-tenth less than the actual Hobbit must have weighed. (Adrian Barnett, “New Research suggests 'hobbit' was not a new species”, New Scientist News Service, 18 May 2006, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.

In addition, the existence of such short people is not actually all that surprising. As we know from pygmies, human tribes with very short stature are still living today. Moreover, according to the Guinness Book of Records website, the American Tamara de Treaux is only 77 cm (2 ft 7 in) tall. Another very short individual is Weng Wang from the Philippines, at 83 cm (2 ft 9 in). (Carl Wieland, "Soggy dwarf bones", Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links. )

If several people of that height were to die on an island, and if palaeontologists of the distant future were to unearth those people’s fossil bones and then attempt to describe them as a separate species, they would of course be making a mistake. Evolutionists’ separate species error regarding Flores Man is of just such a kind.

The deficiencies in Falk’s research

In addition, Martin and his team showed that Falk’s research was unreliable, because the sole microcephalic specimen employed by Falk belonged to a child who had died at the age of 10. However, the Homo floresiensis skull is known to have belonged to an adult aged around 30. The deficiency in Falk’s comparison lies in the use of microcephalic specimens very different in terms of age and very few in number.

In contrast, Martin and his team examined a larger number of skulls that also included adult specimens. Furthermore, the skull used by Falk was not the original, but was based on a plaster model. Moreover, the model’s top region did not exactly fit the other areas and was made from separate plaster. (Robert D. Martin et al, ibid.) This also damaged the reliability of Falk’s comparison.

Homo floresiensis: A modern human race

Martin and his team’s research reveals that Flores Man is not a distinct species from today’s human being, but a human race subjected to microcephaly. Therefore, giving it the name Homo floresiensis is a biased choice made in the light of evolutionists’ preconceptions and of the needs of the theory of evolution. Flores Man is a variation of Homo sapiens. In addition, this is nothing new. The Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob Flores, director of the Institute of Palaeoanthropology at Gadjah Mada University, made this clear in a statement issued shortly after the publication of the Flores discovery:

It is not a new species. It is a sub-species of Homo sapiens classified under the Australomelanesid race. If it’s not a new species, why should it be given a new name? ("Indonesian scientist says Flores hominid not new species", AFP Science by Yahoo, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.

In fact, the statements reported by ntvmsnbc.com and those in the introduction to the article are parallel ones and show that the objection Jacob made a year ago has spread still further within the scientific community.

Flores Man’s small brain reveals a major problem for the theory of evolution

It is particularly important to state that the small Homo floresiensis brain that evolutionists have adopted as “distinct species” criterion actually leads to results that work against the theory of evolution. Because according to classic evolutionist scenarios, human intelligence should have developed in line with an increase in brain volume. However, Flores Man totally undermines that evolutionist dogma. The question that evolutionists are unable to answer is this: how is it that this supposed hominid, with a brain no bigger than that of a chimpanzee, could have made tools used by Homo sapiens, today’s human being, in that period, and could have used them for hunting animals much larger than themselves?

One can see from statements on the subject by evolutionist authorities that they are confronted by a situation that creates problems and confusion for them. The anthropologist Chris Stringer for example, from London’s Museum of Natural History, expresses his astonishment in these terms:

Here is a creature with a brain the size of a chimpanzee's, but apparently a tool-maker and hunter, and perhaps descended from the world's first mariners. Its very existence shows how little we know about human evolution. I could never have imagined a creature like this, living as recently as this. ("Our not so distant relative", The Guardian, 28 October 2004, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.

The evolutionist Peter Brown, one of the main figures in the team that discovered the fossils describes the problem that the skull volume poses for their theories thus:

Small stature is easy to accommodate, but small brain size is a bigger problem - it still is. ("Our not so distant relative", The Guardian, 28 October 2004, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.

As we have seen, the small Homo floresiensis skull on which evolutionists base their distinct species claim in fact represents a major problem for their own theory. However, evolutionists are oddly attempting to distort this and use it as a propaganda vehicle in their own favor. This, of course, is a dogmatic approach rather than a scientific one.

Evolutionary propaganda has once again been defeated by science

Let us now step back a little while our knowledge about Flores Man is still fresh in our minds and recall the media storm that broke when these findings were first published. In October 2004 many publishing organs gave the impression that the Flores discoveries represented evidence for evolution, interpreting their significance as being “the anthropological discovery of the century” or “a revolution in anthropology.” However, the evolutionist propaganda concerning “the anthropological revolution of the century” soon slowed down during the process of scientific investigation. The “distinct species” claims made regarding the fossils soon became such a matter for debate that just a few months later The Times Online, the Internet edition of The Times and The Sunday Times, summarized the latest developments in these words:

A find heralded as the greatest discovery in anthropology for a century has degenerated into one of its greatest rows. (Nigel Hawkes, Professor fuels row over Hobbit man fossils, The Times Online, 3 December 2004)

In fact, the evolution speculation regarding the Flores discoveries lacked any sound scientific analysis right from the outset. Martin, who headed the latest research, drew attention to this by saying,

There has been too much media hype and too little critical scientific evaluation. (“Race of tiny people didn’t exist, scientists say”, 18 May 2006, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links. )

The palaeoanthropologist Ian Tattersall also notes this uncertainty:

This is an extraordinarily weird and unexpected thing, and, even now, nobody knows what to do with it. (Guy Gugliotta, “Scientists Debate the Normalcy of Ancient 'Hobbits'”, The Washington Post, 19 Mayıs 2006, s A12, Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.
As can be seen from these comments, another evolutionist propaganda storm is about to come to an end during the process of scientific investigation. Flores Man appears to be about to follow the other fossil species that have been added to the human family tree to great accompanying fanfare but that have later been silently removed in the face of subsequent findings. Evolutionist claims propounded as if they were irrefutable scientific facts can be seen to consist of illusory speculation nourished by ideological fervor.

Conclusion: Evolution preconceptions must not be allowed to pose an obstacle to science

Flores Man, with its small brain volume and body, is of course a most astonishing discovery. However, scientists investigating the factors that led to these characteristics must remain scientifically objective and include all possible explanations in their evaluations. It is clear that describing Flores Man as a distinct species even though its small brain volume can be explained within the framework of a well known disorder such as microcephaly, of which many examples exist, by completely ignoring this possibility, is a far cry from objectivity. An attitude that blindly accepts prejudiced interpretations instead of an analysis that includes all possible alternatives cannot, of course, be maintained in the face of the scientific facts and critical examinations. The latest research that has revealed the deficiencies and weaknesses of the distinct species claim is an excellent example of this. Evolutionists, who hastily interpreted the findings as belonging to a separate species, are once again mistaken and have placed themselves in a very difficult position.

So long as evolutionists put their preconceptions ahead of science such errors will never end, and they will keep on exhibiting behavior that only serves to show how their theories are an ideology that is defended dogmatically.

We congratulate the Ntvmsnbc.com news service for reporting developments that contradict evolutionist hypotheses in this story, and hope that this will become a matter of policy.

[*] Flores Man has been nicknamed the “Hobbit” by the media

thanks şevval

sozluk.sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=evrim+teorisi -

thnx şevval.