Is the theory of evolution falsifiable

Book review of Hans-Joachim Zillmer (2005) The evolution lie

by Dr. Günter Schweigert, State Museum for Natural History, Stuttgart

Submitted for printing in October 2005 Geoscientific Communications (GMit)

The evolution - a structure of lies !?

 Hans-Joachim Zillmer (2005): The evolution lie - the Neanderthals and other falsifications of human history. - 334 p., 49 ills., 69 photos; Munich (LangenMüller)

ISBN 3-7844-3026-0 . Price: € 22.90

The theory of evolution - all nonsense, supported by a scheming, conspiratorial community of scientists who try to suppress other opinions in order to save their own jobs? This is what H.-J. Make Zillmer believe in his latest book. Forgeries and incorrect dating serve him as a welcome hook to tear apart the theory of evolution as a whole. Zillmer starts from the hypothesis that the history of the earth lasted much shorter, and that the time required for evolution does not even exist. Some periods of time, such as the Tertiary or the Mesolithic, are viewed as extremely short or nonexistent, but rather fictitious - but a look at geological maps immediately shows the widespread distribution of tertiary sediments. He gives a very excellent counterexample with the Paris Basin for the allegedly undetectable stacking of tertiary formations in his view. It is embarrassing that on the geological table shown in the introduction, the Paleocene is referred to as the Paleozoic. His presented facts, largely limited to the evolution of humans and mammals, seem overwhelming, at least to the inexperienced reader who does not have the necessary scientific background knowledge. However, if you take a closer look, these apparent facts turn out to be highly obscure sources with no verifiable background. In compiling such reports, often from the daily press or sensational press of the century before last, one has to attest to the author's great diligence. Alleged observations of "Nessie", the Yeti, Bigfoot or even of aliens are remarkably similar to the alleged testimonies presented here, such as isolated human footprints or even hand (!) Tracks next to dinosaur tracks, or the alleged one that haunted the press decades ago Cambrian shoe print with a trampled trilobite - mind you in a marine deposit. With regard to an alleged chunk of sandstone from Colombia from the Cretaceous period with human extremities, Zillmer should ask himself whether some Colombian fossil dealers are as good at counterfeiting as some Moroccan trilobite carvers. An allegedly crushed human skull from the Upper Carboniferous, unmasked by the scientific community as concrete, is just as convincing as Scheuchzer's Homo Diluvii. He documents an alleged modern dinosaur reconstruction on an allegedly forged artifact (sword made of lead!) With only a tiny line drawing. The whole thing is garnished with completely out of context quotes from scientists who have to serve as witnesses or rather key witnesses for the absurdity of some alleged doctrinal opinions. The fact that the Sahara as a desert emerged only recently, as can be seen from the rock carvings of prehistoric people with depictions of a rich African fauna, is nothing new to Zillmer. But what in this context put forward mosasaur finds from the Cretaceous period - incorrectly mentioned as mesosaurs - are supposed to have to do with the relic occurrences of recent crocodiles seems a mystery to me. The well-documented, repeatedly changing climate scenarios with several cold and warm periods within the Ice Age are reduced to a single short “snow time” and the question is asked how warmth-loving animals such as lions and hippos then managed to exist in this wasteland. An apparently misleading newspaper report is given as the source for the alleged coexistence of the extremely warmth-loving animals with mammoth & Co. The main argument for Zillmer's reduction in time is his assertion that one cannot infer the duration of a deposit from the thickness of a deposit. That is of course completely correct and in no way contrary to any doctrinal opinion, as Zillmer wants us to believe. The layer of finds of the Heidelberg lower jaw from the sands of Mauer or the Steinheim prehistoric man can easily have been deposited in a very short time, even in a single event; no scientific key witnesses are required for this. This says nothing at all about the total age of the deposit. The extremely numerous remains of long-extinct mammals that have come to light together with this lower jaw - unfortunately far less spectacular compared to a hominid find for the sensation-hungry press and the scientific world - should not simply be suppressed. Radiometric dating methods may also have been incorrect here and there, which may have already happened when the sample was taken. Although Zillmer vehemently rejects these methods, he always resorts to them, but only when the data obtained seem to fit into the picture. The theory of evolution can do without these methods anyway; they are simply a modern aid where previously only vague estimates could be made. It is also strange that he evaluates the occurrence of Cretaceous fossils on today's surface of the earth as evidence that they lived together with the allegedly much younger ones. If the Cretaceous fossils had not been exposed by erosion and thus reached a level accessible to direct observation, we would only know fossils from mines. When we pick up a petrified ammonite on England's Yorkshire coast, it never occurs to anyone that it is the same age as the dead herring that washed up next to it. The fact that the last common ancestor of all people living today is said to have lived only 3000 years ago is sheer nonsense, since we are already in the historical epoch and the current migration possibilities for individual individuals (airplane!) Did not even exist at that time and some indigenous peoples still live in extensive isolation even today. In clear contradiction to the extremely rapid passage of time in the history of the earth, there is even the earth expansion theory that Zillmer is toying with as an alternative to the plate theory. Of course, scientific knowledge is the result of constantly increasing knowledge, and it is part of the scientific ethos to always question the knowledge gained and not to sit on any doctrine - not even a Darwin, by the way. Often only imperfect ideas can be derived from a small amount of data, and errors have occurred and will continue to occur again and again in the future. So the last word has certainly not yet been said about the Neanderthals. To explain the Easter Island sculptures, Zillmer would of course only have to leaf back a little in his own book, where a contemporary Malay is depicted. Or are the Malays also Neanderthals? All in all: if everything were already known, research could be stopped. It is not our place to condemn an ​​earlier, less perfect state of knowledge from our present point of view. However, if you enjoy reading Däniken, you won't be too disappointed by Zillmer.

Günter Schweigert, Stuttgart