What this is in response to. Feel free to look at it and see if I took anything out of context. Photos have been removed. Once again, due to the length, I may split this up into multiple segments, each addressing a specific section or topic.
For definitions, I’d recommend looking at a previous post I’ve done in response to something I saw based on the “work” of Harun Yahya, the first part in the ongoing series Evolution Deceit which criticizes a few excerpts from it. Still working on it, just making sure that the references I’ve provided aren’t taken out of context or otherwise misquoted, a criticism that I’ve had to level frequently against Harun Yahya.
There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “ape-man” image,
Technically speaking, from the perspective of taxonomy, human beings are apes. As a member of the Family Hominidae, also known as the Great Apes, we are, well, look at the also known as. Harun Yahya might as well say that “there is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “eukaryote-man” image, the “animal-man” image, or the “mammal-man” image, or the “primate-man.” It would be just as reasonable.
which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to “produce” the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.
In regards to “No concrete fossil evidence” to support human evolution, I can find that “concrete fossil evidence” within a short time, and other forms of evidence used when constructing phylogenetic trees. I’ll go over piltdown man since it is the focus of the next section.
Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s. These specimens were labelled the “Piltdown man”. Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on “Piltdown man”, many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution.
Not quite important evidence for human evolution. At that time, a few other species, such as Neanderthal, Cro-magnon, and Heidelberg Man, were already known. Without Piltdown man, it was already possible to determine that Homo sapiens had evolved from another species, although the details such as how long ago, and what the species involved were happened to be less specific than they are now. What made Piltdown more significant at the time was that it was discovered in England, with the analysis done suggesting that it predated other species such as the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons in Europe. The really important fossils which give us a stronger understanding of human phylogeny came from Africa starting in the 1930s (see links provided in the human evolution section of the references and recommended further reading).
No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.64
No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject of Piltdown man? I’ve looked. It appears to be a myth that has been repeated a few times by creationists. Although, if Harun Yahya wants to support his assertion, by all means, he or his organization, should find each of, or at least most of, the 500 doctoral theses on the subject of Piltdown man.
While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said “We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes” and proclaimed Piltdown “a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man”.65
Luckily, a potential source for the quotes is provided. A New Scientist article, entitled “Smith Woodward’s Folly” without any results providing the article, so, to double check, I’ve sent a message asking about the article in question to the publisher.
Although, looking around from other places, I did find a source for it which came from Stephan Jay Gould. Piltdown Revisited, from Natural History: March 1979. The February 1979 article is unavailable through the archives, with the only two that were accessible which were written by SJG and published by New Scientist were found August and September. So I question the accuracy of the attributed source.
Update: Apparently, there is an article by that title from April 5, 1979, (not February 5, 1979) although, Revisiting Piltdown does have several of the same points, but is less in depth. After having skimmed through it, it alters the point which I was going to make, by pointing out that the article in question deals with why people were inclined to regard Piltdown man as a genuine species, such as
- The imposition of strong hope upon dubious evidence
- Reduction of an anomaly by fit with cultural bias
- Reduction of anomaly by matching fact to expectation
- some of those who had suspected that the finding was not genuine prior to having been revealed in 1953
- examples of species that are ancestors to modern humans, such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (page 44, in The Imposition of Strong Hope upon Dubious Evidence).
Because of details like that, I have to ask, did Harun Yahya actually read the source provided as a reference to the quotes mentioned earlier? After all, if he had, he should be able to either address or avoid making statements which can be shown to be erroneous or demonstrating a degree of misrepresentation. Due to the fact that the bibliography I’ve mentioned is missing it, I’ve sent them an e-mail providing a link to it, although it seems to have had a problem with being delivered.
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum’s Paleontology Department, attempted to use “fluorine testing”, a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was not older than a few thousand years old.
“Then, in 1949, Kennith P. Oakley applied his fluorine test to the Piltdown remains. Bones pick up fluorine in proportion to their time of residence in a deposit and the fluorine content of the deposit. Both the skull and jaw of Piltdown contained barely detectable amounts of fluorine; they could not have lain long in the gravels. Oakley still did not suspect fakery. He proposed that Piltdown, after all, had been a recent internment into ancient gravels.
But, a few years later, in collaboration with J. S. Weiner and W. E. le Gros Clark, Oakley considered the obvious alternative – that the “internment” had been made in this century with intent to defraud.”
So there is a gap of a few years, between the date that the tests were performed, and the time at which Oakley realized that it was not a genuine fossil. Four years to be specific. 1953, a year which does come up later. Although, there are a few other alternatives (with intent to embarrass Dawson, as a joke, etc), provided within the same source provided for those quotes.
It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the “primitive” tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements.66 In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said: “The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?”67
Uncovered in the year 153, not 1949, although there was sufficient evidence at the time of discovery that it was not authentic (see Smith Woodward’s Folly).
In the wake of all this, “Piltdown man” was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.
I’ve sent the British Museum an e-mail asking about this. I didn’t get much, just a recommended search, an available article on Piltdown man, and a link providing the inquiries page, all for the Natural History Museum. So, I decided to send an e-mail, asking these questions.
- In what year were the bones referred to Eoanthropus dawsoni put on display?
- In what year was it taken off of display?
- What was the basis for the decision to take it off of display?
The answers I got, were
- No answer was provided in regards to this question.
- The bones weren’t really taken taken off of display, instead, can be found at the Natural History Museum as a way of teaching about the history of paleontology.
- No basis provided as they weren’t really taken off of display.
Now that Piltdown man has been discussed somewhat, it goes onto Nebraska Man. To demonstrate how little research the authors of “Atlas of Creation” have done, I’ll use only one source, to attempt to address at least 80% of the claims which are critical the theory of evolution as it relates to human beings on the basis of Nebraska Man. Given that it was last updated on April 30, 2003, while the Atlas of Creation has a copyright set for 2011, it is impossible to say that those involved with the development of the Atlas of Creation wouldn’t have had access to it, unless the site had been blocked prior to then.
Nebraska Man: A Pig’s Tooth
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook.
Not critical, although, Yahya is inclined to mention Henry Osborn in both instances provided so far. I doubt that the possibility of being extremely eager is a tendency of Osborn crossed Harun Yahya’s mind.
This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called “Nebraska man”, in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings.
“Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae.” (Osborn 1922)”
If you need to ask why the tooth would have common characteristics of a pig, an ape (ape in the colloquial use), and a human being,let me help you out. Since it was a molar, I’ll use the image I can find for one of each.
- Molar Tooth from a human being
- Molar Tooth from a Chimpanzee
- Molar Tooth from a Gorilla (see C)
- Molar Tooth from a Pig (see Tooth #137)
Since those aren’t likely to be the best images out there, if you can find better images which display the molar teeth in more detail (or better yet, from a source that shows that sort of tooth from multiple angles), feel free to say where you found the image.
All of them have a generally flat surface, so should they be ground down somewhat, they would not be extremely difficult to confuse.
Nebraska man was also immediately given a “scientific name”, Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
Not critical, although, I get the notion that some people reading the original source will regard it as critical. It was given a name just like any other species would be after evidence suggesting it’s existence, as the species needs a name which can be used to refer to it.
And the “scientific name,” for those who are interested, is known as binomial nomenclature (meaning two naming system, similar to the use of a family name and given name), generally with the first word in the name representing the genus (ex: Homo sapiens are part of the genus Homo), with the second word being referred to as the species name.
Critical Claim 2
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man’s head and body were drawn.
Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
“Creationists often ridicule the Nebraska Man illustration, of two humanlike but extremely bestial creatures, done by Amedee Forestier for the Illustrated London News (Smith 1922). They rightly point out that an animal cannot be reconstructed from one tooth. But the drawing was not a reconstruction and was never intended, or claimed, to be accurate or scientific, being based more on the Java Man fossil than on the tooth. Smith emphasized (the following quote was in both the main text and below the drawing) its speculative nature: “Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.” (Smith 1922, emphasis added)””
Critical Claim 3
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this “ghost man” that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
William Bryan was a researcher? Tell me, is William Brian’s middle name Jennings? He wasn’t a scientist. He was a politician. If anybody wishes to say that he was a researcher or scientist, provide his credentials in the field of science. His ideas were harshly criticized because for the most part, he promoted creationism, seemingly out of fear on the basis of not understanding the theory of evolution, as Gould has suggested, confusing the theory of evolution with the concept of eugenics, combined with being a populist.
Critical Claim 4
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops.
“”Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote: “In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn’s determination has not yet been generally accepted.””
Critical Claim 5
William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, “Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man”.68
“Gregory confirmed this in his article which correctly identified the tooth:
“The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn’s conclusion that the fossil tooth from Nebraska represented either a human or an anthropoid tooth. (Gregory 1927)”
Critical Claim 6
Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his “family” were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
By all means if Harun Yahya can find something written on the subject of human evolution, with the image of Nebraska Man which he refers to, and had claims which were not criticized by those who studied paleoanthropology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, or the often repeated claims based on the misunderstandings or misrepresentations, he should feel free to present it. Although, there is a point that Harun Yahya doesn’t seem to be willing to acknowledge. It appears difficult for him to acknowledge that people can, do, and have, admitted that they were wrong, and acted upon that knowledge. So, to demonstrate that, should he update those minor details, such as spelling, references provided, remove outright wrong statements, etc, so that they are no longer wrong, he should have no problem with people saying something along the lines of
Then all of the demonstrably erroneous and fallacious statements made by Harun Yahya were hurriedly removed from the creationist literature.
and should he fail to do that, he would be in a worse position than those who are honest, so they quit making the same mistake by clinging to a statement that can be and has been demonstrated to be wrong. I admit, this is intentionally putting him between a rock and a hard place, but it isn’t without basis. It is to get him, or any of his fans, to understand why scientists will not cling to ideas that they know are wrong. Just as a demonstration of this, I’ll provide a quote which might help people understand. From the last paragraph of Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).
There was doubt about the accuracy of the drawings prior to the discovery of other parts of the skeleton the tooth came from, and the people involved stated that, and were critical of the picture shown in a newspaper. Although, if the author wants to say that it was accepted, as it seems that the goal is by employing that there was embarrassment over having learned more, by all means, demonstrate that. We shouldn’t be able to find evidence to the contrary from those who he wishes to say were involved. So, lets go over the percent of critical claims I was able to address with that one link.
Total Number of Critical Claims: 6
Total Number of Critical Claims addressed with one source: 4
Percent of Critical Claims addressed: 66.6%
I had said that I would be able to address at least 80% of the claims in regards to Nebraska Man, and it would appear that I haven’t done so. Two were addressed by questioning the basis for the claim (William Jennings Bryan and literature with the picture). It doesn’t really make him look good though, because it gives me a stronger suspicion that all of his arguments consist of arguments from ignorance/personal incredulity, misrepresentations, and appeals to emotion, which is if most of his work happens to be original. If not, it just makes him look worse for being a plagiarist on account of not providing the sources that he plagiarizes from.
Ota Benga: The African in the Cage
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention.
And he already had some evidence to support his claim. It’s why the first chapter is called “The Evidence of the Descent of Man from some Lower Form.”
However, some evolutionists believed that “half-man half-ape” creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world.
Remember that statement I made earlier about what human beings are on the basis of taxonomy. All they would’ve needed is a mirror.
In the early 20th century, these pursuits for “living transitional links” led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo.
An evolutionist researcher? So, no specified qualifications, or anything which can be used to figure out who it is? Well, lets try to find out, shall we?
- The person who found Ota Benga was Samuel Phillips Verner, a businessman and missionary. Finding anything among the list of writings I was able to find which indicates that he understood the theory of evolution, or even regarded it as valid, is nearly impossible, although, don’t let it stop you.
- According to the previously provided link, his background consists of being a
- Newspaper Editor
- Nowhere within that do we find anything indicating that he understood the theory of evolution, or even regarded it as valid, so if you want, feel free to keep looking.
In his own tongue, his name meant “friend”. He had a wife and two children.
I’ll call bullshit when I see it. A blatant attempt to make seem as though Samuel Verner was responsible for whatever happened to Ota’s wife and children, who died prior to S. Verner finding Ota Benga on account of the Force Publique‘s actions. His second wife (name unavailable) died shortly after the World Fair from a snake bite.
Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as “the closest transitional link to man”.
Where to begin?
- Reference indicating that he was chained or caged after his time on the slave market?
- They were acting upon ideas based in anthropology at the time (“Mr. Verner had been hired to take some pygmies and other Africans back to St. Louis for the extensive “anthropology exhibit””, see New York Times article on the subject)
Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of “ancient ancestors of man” along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung.
And as though that weren’t enough, even Phillips Bradford (not Philips Bradford), the author of the book used as the source of the claims, has commented on this.
“You have to understand the times a little bit. This was a time when the theory of evolution was still being hotly debated; it wasn’t as broadly accepted, even in the scientific community, as it is today, and people were probably lead to believe, from the nature of the exhibition that this was a missing link, a bridge between the animals and the humans that had never been seen before.”
Unfortunately, I can’t find any more that I can verify is from him on the subject of the presentation, or from a fairly reputable source.
Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional “transitional form” in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal.
Quite frankly, I have my own suspicions about why William Hornaday did what he did. Acting upon people’s attraction to the exhibit, and their having noticed Benga’s presence, he did what any businessman would do. He played up the hype by doing anything possible (I’ve read of him scattering bones around the pen), used a concept that few people at the time had any understanding of (such as how some businesses will attempt to use terms such as quantum and energy when marketing their products) which was also controversial, and has some similarities to the opinion I’d run across in the New York Times article (see page two section entitled Degradation and Darwin). I could be wrong about that. What I won’t speculate so much about though, is
- William Hornaday’s qualifications to comment on the theory of evolution
- Hornaday’s actions and the basis for those actions
- The traits that are indicative of any transitional species
and how they relate to the case.
William Hornaday studied at the Oskaloosa College for an unspecified period of time, with the courses unspecified, so that does not provide any insight into his qualifications, especially since it is closed and I can find no way to view the records of those who attended. The same problem in regards to a lack of specific period of time and courses taken exists with Iowa State Agricultural College and his studies in Europe, more so with the case of Europe on account of no specific university or college attended. Given the lack of information in that regard, we’ll then have to look at what he did in life, especially those which required an education. Given the work he did later on, it is likely that he was in fact, qualified as a taxidermist. So far, we have insufficient basis to determine what his opinion on the matter of evolution is, as at the time, it wasn’t as widely accepted by scientists.
As far as work prior to the zoo is concerned, the only ones that I could find references for which specified an organization are
- United States National Museum as the chief taxidermist from 1882-1890
- Smithsonian Institution for a few years, with involvement in the founding of the Smithsonian National Zoological Park, and harvesting American Buffalo specimens so that they could be preserved through taxidermy
Afterwards, he did do a few other fairly significant things, mostly related to conservation. The reason that I had selected prior to working at the zoo is that anything which occurred afterwards is not something which can be used to determine what he thought at the time. What we do know about him, is that he appears to be qualified as a zoologist, that most of his work involved zoology (ex: taxidermy, collecting and harvesting specimens, zoo director). Still, insufficient basis to conclude what his opinion on the matter is, although, simply on the basis of suspected qualifications in zoology, he should be able to understand the theory of evolution as was understood by most scientists at the time.
I wasn’t able to find or compile a complete list of his actions in regards to Ota Benga, but, I did find one thing which might suggest the basis for his actions.
Excerpt from the New York Times article, page three
“Hornaday remained unapologetic, insisting that his only intention was to put on an “ethnological exhibit.””
Nothing to do with evolution, so there is something which provides some support to my suspicions, although, it would either be anthropology instead of evolution, or anthropology in addition to evolution.
Significant Species within Human Phylogeny
Given that Hornaday was employed by the Smithsonian, I will use their site on the subject of human evolution to address the subject. I’ll look at significant species which existed roughly within the last five million years, demonstrated landmark developments in human evolution, and known of at the time. Given some of the difficulty of finding details about what was known about the species during the early 1900s, I will assume that only the only traits that they know about are the major milestones in human evolution, which is pretty much the bare minimum. If I find more of what they knew at the time, I’d have no problem with updating this section.
discovered – 1891
Existed – 1.89mya to ~150,000 years ago
traits – Bipedal, stone age technology, the ability to make and use fire, and towards the end, an increase in technology
All of which are traits that have been documented among people living in Sub-Sahara Africa within recorded history. Given that Homo Erectus went extinct about 150,000 years ago, it would be foolish to say that Ota Benga would be an example of a transitional species.
So even if we grant that William Hornaday was qualified to say if a species would be a specimen of a transitional species, or even an example of one, it wouldn’t be accurate to call Ota Benga an “exceptional “transitional form.”
Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.69
Committed suicide in 1916, and it wasn’t quite because of his treatment. An excerpt from Encyclopedia Virginia
“Despite his efforts to assimilate, Benga struggled to make a new life in Lynchburg, and he became increasingly hopeless about his future there. He had lost contact with his friend Verner, and, even if he had wanted to return to the Congo, he couldn’t afford the cost of travel on his own.
On March 20, 1916, Benga committed suicide in a stable behind Josephine Anderson’s house.”
And an excerpt from the NPR radio diary on the subject
(Phillips Verner Bradford speaking)
“As good as the intentions of the community of Lynchburg was, and as friendly and accommodating as they could be, Ota Benga became dispondant, and one day, decided to build a little bon fire, around the edges of the town, took off his clothes, threw them in the fire; he had borrowed a gun from one of his host families, and shot himself…. He said that he wanted to send his soul back to Africa.”
It doesn’t appear that it was the treatment, it appears to be a feeling of abandonment due to Verner, a close friend, having left, difficulty assimilating into the culture in which he lived (despite learning to read and speak English, having caps on his teeth, and so forth), and a sense of home sickness, wanting to return to what he knew.
I could be wrong about any point in the Ota Benga section, so I’ve sent Phillip Bradford, the author of the only book used as a source in regards to Ota Benga, an e-mail on the subject. No idea if he’ll respond or not, so unless I can get a copy of it or find a copy of it online, this is all I’ll be able to do on the subject Ota Benga for now.
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga… These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory.
Who is responsible for Piltdown Man or for what reason is currently unknown, Nebraska Man is an example of a few people acting on very little, while those who know absolutely nothing about the state of affairs in paleoanthropology at that time act as though it was sufficient to convince everybody in the field, and Ota Benga wasn’t regarded as an example of a transitional species by anybody qualified to say what would be considered an example of a transitional species within human phylogeny at that time, not to mention the limited number of known species within human evolution at the time making any statement on the matter very poorly supported, which started to be alleviated through the discovery of a multitude of hominid fossils within Africa which gave us a better understanding of human evolution.
Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the “human evolution” myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.
Aww, look! He’s trying to smear the findings over the last several decades on the basis of his misrepresentations. Isn’t that cute? I swear, if I was dealing with an infant or dog, I’d go overboard on the cutesy talk. But I’m dealing with an adult, so I’ll be blunt: do some research. Compare the processes that would be used during the early 1900s (as that appears to be the time which all three occurred), now, and within any other instances used. If you provide a reference, make sure that you read it. If you quote somebody, and you aren’t certain about the context, make sure to ask them. Given that Harun Yahya is supposedly the head of an international group, Harun Yahya International, and influential in somewhat recognized groups found in Turkey such as the BAV, it isn’t to much to ask that he attempt to do some research. It also should be noted, that your sources shouldn’t be able to be used to disprove your statements, such as Smith Woodward’s Folly could be employed to do so.
References and recommended Further Reading/Viewing
On Piltdown man
Smith Woodward’s Folly by Stephan Jay Gould – New Scientist – April 5, 1979
Images of molar teeth provided in links
Human Evolution Made Easy – Youtube – “But as more fossils emerged from South Africa in the 1930s, it became clear that piltdown was the anomaly, not the town child.”
13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism – Youtube – “Every “evolutionist hoax” ever alleged was either fabricated or misrepresented to such a degree that each contributes to a growing list of creationist frauds.” <HIGHLY RECOMMENDED>
Edit: The page that was linked to earlier (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_17.php) was taken down, however, you can still see the bulk of the claims, mostly unedited, here http://harunyahya.com/en/works/974/the-evolution-deceit/chapter/3574