The WT fake chimp (for those who missed it)

by Mr Ben 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • Mr Ben
    Mr Ben

    After a discussion in the live chatroom I realised some did not know of the Watchtower’s fake chimp. I first saw it as a link on JanH’s old site, but I can no longer find the URL for the original, which I believe was from the Norwegian Agnostic Society, or something like that.

    The next time a dub calls on you ask them why they are forced to believe that chimpanzees do not have canine teeth. They will probably just look dumb at you (unsurprisingly). Ask them to turn to page 94 of the 1985 book “Life-How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?” and look at the picture of the “chimp”:

    Above: entitled “Chimpanzee skull” From page 94 of the 1985 book “Life-How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?”

    If we compare it to a picture of a real chimp skull we can see the difference:

    Above: Real chimp skull from page 73 of "Origins" by Richard Leakey & Roger Lewin (rotated to face same way as others)

    Adult chimpanzees have seriously large canine teeth which anyone can see from the television, books or the zoo. But where are the canine teeth in the Watchtower “chimp”? Something is wrong. The picture is used in support of the idea that humans are special creations by God and not the product of evolution. Actually the whole argument the Society uses is a deception. They compare the “chimp” skull with an Australopithecus skull and a human skull to try and show that Australopithecines were “only” ancient apes and are not related to Man. This is of course a red herring! The whole excitement about the Australopithecines was that they were indeed ape-like, but ones that also walked upright like Man! The interesting parts of Australopithecine anatomy have nothing to do with the skull at all! It is just a red herring to discredit the real discovery that the hip and knee joints show that an ancient ape started to walk upright like we do, which of course supports evolutionary theory. The Society faked the chimp picture because if they had used a real chimp skull it might have looked like an evolutionary progression from chimps to humans. That, of course, is a nonsense as modern chimps are not our ancestors as some believe, but the average dub might get the wrong impression so they just faked the picture!

    Now, you might say, “It’s a baby chimp! It’s canines haven’t grown yet!” It isn’t. Or, “It’s a deformed chimp!” Even if that were true, would it be honest? Anyway, it isn’t. What is it then? To find the answer of where the Society really got the picture we have to turn to page 85 of the previous evolution book, published in 1967, “Did man get here by evolution or creation?”:

    Above: entitled “Extinct ape” From page 85 of the 1967 book, “Did man get here by evolution or creation?”

    Compare the 1967 picture with the 1985 picture and you will see it is the same! But notice that in 1967 it wasn’t a chimp but an “extinct ape”! How does what is an extinct ape in 1967 become a modern chimpanzee in 1985? Whether the original picture is also a fake I don’t know, but one thing is clear, the Governing Body have such contempt for the intelligence for the average JW that they just used the old picture in the new book and changed the title from an extinct ape to a living chimp! Of course, if anyone discovered this fraud they could be dealt with by the judicial committees and silenced.

    I like this example of Watchtower Society dishonesty (which actually riddles the whole 1985 book) because it is impossible to argue that it is just a mistake as they had to go to some lengths to tart up the old picture, rename it and write the associated paragraphs to support their case – all the while knowing full well they were perpetrating a fraud. It is a clear case of a deliberate lie, hoax, fraud, whatever you want to call it, on the reader. But then, readers of this forum aren’t likely to be surprised by that!

    (20 dec 01 - I changed the possibly misleading description of Australopithecus from "ape" to "ape-like")

    Religion n.
    An organisation designed to promote atheism.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Thanks for re-posting that. I'm sure some newer lurkers/posters have not yet seen it.

    For the record, Jan Haugland was a "rabid" JW when he first ran into AlanF some years back. He credits Alan for being the one who patiently helped him to see the "truth" for what it really is. And just look at the volume of excellent research and material that Jan has put forth over those years since.

    So, for those of you who don't think Alan has made much of a difference in people's lives, if any, just ask Jan about it. And Jan is not unique in that regard. By any means.

    In all the years I've known Alan, he's never mentioned that fact unless someone else brought it up first. So much for him crowing about how "superior" he thinks he is, huh?

    How many of those who've spent tons of energy vilifying Alan recently can claim a "prize" like Jan due to their efforts?

    How many of those critics did a thorough, chapter-by-chapter critique of the Proclaimer's book? Do you know what a chore that would be, considering the way the material in that book is organized. Well, Alan has.

    How many of those critics took the Creation book with all of its non-sourced "scientific" quotes and took the countless hours to actually hunt down those non-sourced quotes and compare them with the Creation book's citations? Well, Alan has.

    Alan's not perfect, and neither are any of us. But if anyone has a reason to crow about their efforts and contributions, he does. Yet he hasn't done that. Yet he is vilified for "insinuating" that.

    Sorry to get off topic with those comments, and thanks again for re-posting that information for the new ones.

    Farkel

    "I didn't mean what I meant."

  • JanH
    JanH

    Thanks, Ben, for posting this. I have been thinking of reposting it here, but didn't get around to it. It's a definite "smoking gun" showing deliberate fraud from the WTS, not just stupid ignorance.

    The original mention of the fake chimp picture (or, possibly, baby chimp) was made by Carlo in Denmark; the rest is the research by yours truly.

    Farkel, what you say about Alan is totally true. Since I actually approached him and asked him for information, it is pretty obvious I was on the road out of JWdom and would have made it sooner or later on my own, but the value that his excellent writeups had on me (and others) in this process can hardly be overstated. As I have been subject to the same sort of attacks he has on this and other forums, I can certainly relate to it, but I doubt I can add anything of real value to the endless debates, so I stay out. Some people never listen to sense anyway.

    - Jan
    --
    "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

  • nelly136
    nelly136

    thanx for posting that ben, I was in the chatroom when you were
    talking about it, having it in picture form is great because its been
    years since Ive even seen an evolution book,
    nelly

    edited so i could tick my box to hold my password

  • edward gentry
    edward gentry

    looking at those pictures it seems illogical that the WT would fabricate a chimp picture with human like teeth. Theyd be better posting the real chimp. Its got nasty big teeth, further away from the resemblance to man.why would they do that?

  • JanH
    JanH

    Uh, Edward, did you ever look at the original illustration in the Creation book? The WTS' argument was that austalopithecus looked more like a chimp than a it looked like a human. Of course, with the canine teeth, australopithecus would actually look like an intermediate form.

    Let me hasten to add that no scientist believes that asutralopithecene is an intermediate form between chimps and humans. Also, the chimps have evolved exactly as long since our lineages separated as humans have.

    Australopithecus was an obvious intermediate between ancient apes and man by being bipedal, unlike all modern apes. Bipedality was a crucial step in the evolution of modern humans, and thanks to Lucy it is solidly documented. So, of course, the WTS produced a massive red herring in concentrating on the skull (yet, even then they had to cheat to hide inconvenient facts).

    - Jan
    --
    "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

  • Mr Ben
    Mr Ben

    Edward,

    The WTS probably reckoned that the real picture would make australopithecus look like an intermediate form between man and chimps. This is, of course, an impossibility. But the WTS possibly recognised that due to their policy of making sure r&f dubs did not receive a higher education, the uneducated dub reading the book might assume australopithecus was intermediate had they used a real chimp.

    Religion n.
    An organisation designed to promote atheism.

  • edward gentry
    edward gentry

    ah. thanks mr ben.i follow now.jan uses to many big words that confound the illiterate.

  • patio34
    patio34

    Mr. Ben,

    Glad you are posting on the board and providing such good info about evolution, etc. The subject of evolution was what brought me into JWs and, 28 long years later, what 'set me free.' My problem was being ignorant of what the science world was actually saying.

    I had seen those pictures before, but am always glad to have a refresher.

    There is so much information that Alan, JanH, and others have published. It's daunting to tackle it myself to solidify my newly formed belief (or lack thereof) and their works on the net were invaluable. I am grateful to them for taking the time to share it all so freely.

    Merry Xmas!
    Pat

  • patio34
    patio34

    Oh JanH,

    Please clarify for me: is Australopithecus then an intermediary leading to man? I realise that chimps also descended from the common ancestor of both chimps and man. But Mr. & Mrs. Australopithecus were then on the branch leading to us?

    Thanks, JanH.
    Pat

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit