How to Tell Ape from Human Bones

1-2 human_evolution line BWI do realize that the vast majority of scientists in the world are strong believers that humans arose through ape-to-human evolution. It’s simply a universally accepted concept. Even Time Magazine (Figure 1-3) from August of 1999 tells us “how man evolved”. They never ask the biggest question: Did man evolve from an ape common ancestor? How could little ole’ me prove that the world’s scientists and Time are flat out wrong? My job in this book is to show you that human evolution is nothing but a concocted illusion. You will know for yourself once you see the evidence, drawn purely from the facts.

1-3 time cover copy_edited-1To understand ape to human evolution, you need a basic understanding of the clear differences between the bones of apes and humans. They are easy to spot. Taking a few moments learning about the differences will make it far easier for you to make a scientific assessment of the validity of human evolution. If I can make you an expert in just a few minutes of reading, you will be able to decide for yourself what is real and what is not. You won’t have to believe and accept what someone else tells you. If you are an avid believer in human evolution, just keep an open mind. The information itself will tell the tale. You won’t have to believe the pronouncements of any human, including me. You can see for yourself.

There are many characteristics that could be cited in the full skeleton of humans and apes that would determine to which group a particular skeleton belongs. I am going to cite only their skulls, hands and feet. Each individual characteristic that I cite will separate apes from humans. I am exampling a chimpanzee because they’re genetically the closest primates to humans. Evo-illusionists claim that chimpanzees have 96 percent of human DNA. If we have a common ancestor with chimps, they are our cousins many times removed. So our skulls should be similar in design as well. But there are a few obvious and very defining characteristics that need to be known if one is to determine if ancient ape bones are just from apes; or if they truly represent our ancestors.1-4 ape human skull

Figure 1-4 is a montage of the skulls of a chimpanzee (left) and a human (right). The following are key characteristics of ape skulls that human skulls do not have:

(1) Prognathic Jaws: A chimpanzee’s maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) protrude significantly. Typically, the bone from the nose to the tip of upper teeth extrudes out at about a 450 angle, whereas a line drawn from the nose to the chin of a typical human is vertical or concave.

(2) Large Brow Ridges above the eye sockets. Humans have negligible brow ridges.

(3) Absent or small laid back forehead: Apes lack significant vertical foreheads. Humans have large vertical foreheads, which provide room for the much larger frontal lobe of our brains. This is an important difference, as the large frontal lobe of the human brain allows us the ability to make decisions and solve problems. It also controls our behaviors, voluntary movements, emotions, and consciousness. Without a forehead, an animal would not have room for a large frontal lobe, and could not perform functions that differentiate animals from humans. The ability to make tools, improve on them, and the ability to remember how to make them, wouldn’t be possible without a forehead and large frontal lobe.

(4) Small Ovoid or Flat Cranium that houses their much smaller brains. Human adult craniums are about two to three times the volume of ape craniums. Ape craniums are narrower than the lateral extents of the eye sockets, whilst human craniums are far wider then the outer extend of their eye sockets. (See Figure 1-7 below)

1-5 jaw test key(5) Posterior Dental Arches Are “U” Shaped Or Even Towed In Toward The Back: (Figure 1-5) Human dental arches are shaped like a rounded “V”. The lineup of human posterior teeth is flared toward the back. If you look at the chimp, gorilla, and orangutan dental arches you will see that the right and left posterior (back) teeth are lined up parallel to each other. (white lines) The orangutan’s teeth actually flare to the front.

1-6 hands(6) Apes Have a Shorter and Lower Positioned Thumb than Humans: (right image in Figure 1-6) Notice, the thumb doesn’t reach the first knuckle of the index finger. Compare with your own hand.

(7) Ape Big Toes Are Separated From The Rest Of The Toes and are aligned 650 away from the other toes. (left image in Figure 1-6) Ape feet almost look like hands. Ape feet and hands are designed so they each act as both hands and feet. Their hands and feet are both proficient at walking and grasping. Our hands are graspers, not walkers, whilst our feet are walkers, not graspers.

There you go. Now you’re a trained expert at telling the difference between ape fossils and human fossils. Each of these characteristics taken individually can separate ape from man. For example, a skull with large brow ridges will always be ape, not human. Browridges alone are a defining characteristic.            Now that you’re an expert, let’s give you a test. Take a look at Figure 1-7 and see if you can tell which skulls are ape, and which are human. Hint: A is hominid. Or is it ape? Observe how the cranium of a human is wider than its eye sockets, whilst the smaller ape craniums terminate inside of the eye sockets. (arrows)11-7 skull test_edited-2

When diggers unearth supposed ancient pre-human fossils, all possibilities must be considered, not just a single possibility that is given by evo-illusionists with an agenda who are trying so hard to form their illusions. The fact is evo-illusionists routinely use the single possibility that supports their illusions to describe fossil finds when other possibilities exist and are far more likely. This is a demonstration of what an incredible illusion human evolution is. So, what are the possibilities that exist when an ancient ape skeleton, or any part thereof, no matter how tiny, is unearthed by diggers and paleoanthropologists? Evo-illusionists assign them to be human precursors and place them on a branch of the human tree of life. They must do this when there are so few fossils, or the illusion of human evolution will crash. They can’t choose if a particular fossil is an ape or sub-human because there is such a dearth of samples. Evo-illusionists declare nearly every ape-like bone and tooth dug out of the dirt to be a human precursor. Are there other possibilities that scientist should consider when fossils of supposed sub-humans are found? Fortunately for this book and me there are. Here are a few of the possibilities that should be on any true scientists mind when analyzing supposed early ape-person fossils. Only #7 will be considered by any evo-illusionists for certain. The first six will kill the illusion so you will never hear of them from any evo-illusionists. The possibilities are:

(1) It’s a modern ape skeleton that was damaged by moisture, pressure, and chemical decomposition.

(2) Ninety-nine percent of all species that have ever inhabited the Earth became extinct. This means a large number of primate (ape, monkey) species became extinct as well. If a conservative percentage of primates became extinct, say 25 percent over the last five or ten million years, that would mean there are over 200 extinct primate species. These extinct primates certainly died and left bones all over Africa. The odds are huge that “hominid” fossils represent nothing but extinct ancient apes.2,3

(3) It’s a conglomeration of bones found in separate locations put together by evo-illusionists to make them appear to be from a single hominid. In other words, it’s a hoax. This has a much higher chance of being the case than one would think, as you will see.

(4) It’s a bone or part of a skeleton of an ancient non-primate vertebrate species that looks similar to an early ape.

(5) They’re ancient bones of a true human that were crushed, broken, or disturbed in a way that makes them seem a like a human precursor.

(6) They’re the bones of a microcephalic human: or a human who had major deficiencies and mental deficits and were intellectually underdeveloped. Figure 1-8 is the photo of a microcephalic person with slanted forehead and small cranium. Microcephaly occurs in about one in sev1-8 microcephaly_edited-2en thousand births. Microcephalics are generally incapable of inventing and making tools or any complex devices. Almost every hominid fossil found that is supposedly an early human is either an ape whose braincase is “micro” compared to humans, or a microcephalic human. Since no vertebrate with a micro-brain is capable of making tools, any tools found near a microcephalic fossil could not have been invented and made by the live animal that left the fossil.4-6
(7) They’re hominids or pre-human. They evolved over hundreds of thousands or millions of years into modern man.

Of all the seven possibilities, (7) is by far the least likely of the choices, and the least provable. But it’s the most often used to describe puny and dubious fossil finds by evo-illusionists; as I will demonstrate.

For the purposes of this book, I would like to pose law. This law seems beyond obvious, but it’s never considered or discussed by any evo-illusionists I have ever come across, with good reason. It kills their illusion. So here it is:

Blume’s Law of Hominids:

If a selected individual feature of an early fossil skull or skeleton of an ancient animal is similar to an equivalent feature on a human skull or skeleton, that is not evidence whatsoever that that the fossil species evolved into humans.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: