Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

The first nine of the twelve popularly regarded hominids put forth by evolutionists by bone and skull finds have been demonstrated as being extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all. The discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/ apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.

1. The first nine of the supposed hominids are actually apes/monkeys and nothing more (picture #10).
   

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

   Picture #10: The first nine popularly regarded `hominids' put forth and here reconstructed by evolutionists, have been found to be fully monkeys/ apes and not part human at all. The drawings are very misrepresentative, of course. ([8], poster that accompanies book)

   Major Evidences Against Each Supposed Hominid Above

   1. PLIOPITHECUS:
      • (A) #5, Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. #1 was placed on the chart before #5 because it seemed more monkey-like than #5. It stands to reason that it too was a monkey and not part human.
      • (B) #1 was named as a hominid because it looked like a cross between two monkeys, the spider monkey and the gibbon, not because it looked part human.
   2. PROCONSUL:
      • (A) Same as above.
      • (B) Same as above.
   3. DRYOPITHECUS:
      • (A) Same as (A) of #1 and #2.
      • (B) #3 is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape's.
   4. OREOPITHECUS:
      • (A) Same as (A) of #1, #2, and #3.
      • (B) #4 is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.
   5. RAMIPITHECUS:
      • (A) Fossil finds in 1982 and 1988 showed that #5 was only an extinct relative of the orangutan and not part human at all.
      • (B) #5 was based only on a set of teeth.
   6. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS:
      • (A) #6 was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose apelike features had not yet fully developed because it was still a baby.
      • (B) #6 was studied by a team of scientists which concluded that the skull had no human features at all.
   7. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS:
      • (A) #7 was based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree.
      • (B) Same as (B) of #6.
   8. AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI:
      • (A) Same as (A) of #7.
      • (B) Same as (B) of #6 and #7.
   9. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy)
      • (A) #9 is based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are also small with most of the skeleton missing.
      • (B) Same as (B) of #6, #7, and #8.
   
   
2. Number five of picture #10, Ramapithecus, became known as an ape when a fossil face of an extinct ape was found in Pakistan in 1982 and in Turkey in 1980. It was called Sivapithecus. "(The two finds) allowed paleontologists to recognize that this extinct ape is related to the living orangutan. Now, as Ramapithecus is clearly closely related to Sivapithecus, it too must be related to the orangutan." ([14], p.86) As famous paleontologist Roger Lewin notes, "(The status of Ramapithecus went) from putative first human in 1961 to extent relative of the orangutan in 1982." ([14], p.86) This conclusion is accepted by virtually everyone in the field. (picture #1)
3. Since Ramapithecus was an ape, so too, it should be concluded, were the first four of the supposed hominids. The first four were placed before Ramapithecus precisely because they looked even more ape or monkey like than Ramapithecus itself.
4. In fact, the first and second ones on picture #10, Pliopithecus and Proconsul, were named as hominids only because they looked like a cross between certain known monkeys. It never had anything to do with being part human at all. It is observed, "Pliopithecus resembled a modern day spider monkey except for its skull, face and teeth, which looked like those of a gibbon." ([8], p.41)
5. The third one, Dryopithecus "...has been reconstructed primarily by using (lower) jaw and tooth fragments." ([8], p.42) What is more, its lower jaw was discovered as fitting perfectly with the ape (accepted as not part human) Kenyapithecus. We read, "I was looking at these specimens but the lower jaw (of Dryopithecus) with the Kenyapithecus upper and saw that they fit perfectly the overall shape, the detailed anatomy, everything. They might well have belonged to the same individual." Peter Andrews
6. Oreopithecus, the fourth supposed hominid, is written about as follows, "Once thought to be ancestral to man because of its teeth and pelvis, it is now regarded as an aberrant ape or an aberrant relative of monkeys." Paleontologist Clark Howell ([8], p.42)
7. The sixth one, Australopithecus Africanus, is to be considered an ape/ monkey and nothing more on the basis of several evidences. Dean Falk, specialist in neuroanatomy, concluded this about Australopithecus Africanus, "In his 1975 article, Dart (founder of the fossil that represented Australopithecus Africanus) had claimed that the brain of Taung (the name of the fossil) was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that." ([2], p.13) Falk explains, "...Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized...because it was a child. Like humans, (apes and monkeys) go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans." ([2], p.12-3)
8. Roger Lewin, Famous paleontologist concurred saying, "...juvenile apes have a very humanlike form." ([14], p.78)
9. Falk adds, "In all major respects, the Taung endocast appears apelike, not humanlike." ([2], p.47) "...it was an unfortunate error (misidentifying the lambdoid suture as the lunate sulcus) that caused Dart to suggest that australopithecine brains were humanlike." ([2], p.34)
10. Prominent anatomist at the time of Dart's discovery, Arthur Keith, wrote, "(Dart's) claim is preposterous, the skull is that of a young anthropoid ape...and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group. ([10], p.56)
11. Australopithecus Robustus, number seven on the list, and Australopithecus Boisei, number eight, rest on very inconsistent assumptions. There skulls actually have crests on the top (picture #6). This crest appears in male apes (picture #6) but not in humans at all.
12. The final Australopithecus, Australopithecus Afarensis or Advanced Australopithecus, also named Lucy and is number nine on the chart, is based only on that of picture #5. What is more, these fragments were placed together by diggers who found them miles apart and hundreds of feet deeper.
13. In addition, "...Johanson (the one who put the parts together and found them) admits that from the neck up, `Lucy' was ape (she had the jaws, teeth, face, and brain of an ape)..." ([3], p.83) Roger Lewin notes that Lucy seemed to be an ape's head on a human's body. ([15], p.59)
14. Regarding all four of the Australopithecus types, we find the following "Lord Zuckerman (Dr. Solly Zuckerman), a famous British anatomist,...had a team of scientists, rarely numbering less than four, who studied the fossils of Australopithecus for 15 years. They used the most sophisticated methods of anatomical study available to analyze these fossils. After many years of study and research, Lord Zuckerman declared that Australopithecus did not walk upright, and that these creatures were not intermediate between ape and man. Lord Zuckerman's team concluded that they were not the same as any modern ape living today, but they were, nevertheless, nothing more than apes." ([1], p.84) He added, "...the anatomical basis for the claim that (they) walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates, that it remains unacceptable." ([11], p.82) "He Zuckerman, says that if we exclude the possibility of creation, then, obviously, man must have evolved from an ape like creature but if he did there is no evidence for it in the fossil record. Lord Zuckerman makes no profession of being a creationist. If the evidence supported evolution, he would readily accept it." ([1], p.84)
15. "Dr. Charles Oxnard, (professor of anatomy), ...studied the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) of Australopithecus. He employed the very latest techniques for his research. Dr. Oxnard, even though he is not a creationist, has declared that his research has established that these creatures did not walk upright like humans, that they were not intermediate between apes and man...Other scientists have come to somewhat similar conclusions." ([1], p.84)
16. Dean Falk, brain specialist, regarding the four Australopithecus types, note their rejection by scientists as anything more than monkeys/ apes, "Since 1985, much new evidence has come to light that shows australopithecines were much more apelike than previously believed. As I write this book, the accepted view of Taung and the other australopithecines has taken a 180 degree turn because of the research on dentition and locomotion by numerous young investigators whose work has already been discussed: Bill Jungers, Holly Smith, Tim Bromage, Mike Vannier, and Glenn Conroy. Although the `australopithecines-humanlike' school still has its diehards, they no longer hold the majority opinion...And, the endocasts of australopithecines are, of course, just as apelike as they can be." (picture #13)
    

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

    Picture #13: Above are the skulls used for numbers 6-9 on picture #10. They can be shown to be those of extinct monkeys/ apes and not part human at all.

17. It is apparent even to the naked eye that these skulls were monkeylike. Here is another monkey skull for comparison. (picture #11) ([12], p.52)
    

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

    Picture #11: Many skulls are those of extinct monkeys and apes. Here is a skull of one known extinct monkey. It, of course, greatly resembles the `finds' of evolutionists. ([8], p.31)

18. We find that all of these species were found only were monkeys and apes exist or have existed and nowhere else. We find also that the total number of species of monkeys and apes is 166 today with a possible hundreds of additional extinct ones. These finds could be any of them. (picture #12)
    

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

    Picture #12: These charts show where the supposed human ancestors were found (left) and were monkeys/ apes have existed (right). As expected, the supposed `hominids' are not found anywhere that monkeys or apes have not existed supporting the fact that these supposed `hominids' are actually only extinct monkey/ apes.

19. Therefore, Solly Zuckerman and many other conclude (paraphrase), "...variation among ape fossils is sufficiently great (such) that a scientist whose imagination was fired by the desire to find ancestors could easily pick out some features in an ape fossil and decide that they were `pre-human'." ([11], p.82)