member's mark trail mix

THE LOST BOYS FAMILY 2009 ACTION REEL

The Origin of Man

Anyone searching for an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will find with two different explanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living beings came into existence as a result of intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution" which maintains that life things are not the products of intelligent design, but the coincidence of the causes and natural processes.
For a century and a half, the theory of evolution has been widely supported by the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms evolutionary concepts. So between the two accounts of creation and evolution, most people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Consequently, they believe that evolution is a theory supported by the observation results of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. The results of the last two decades, in particular, in direct contradiction with the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects can not explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN

Darwin for his claim that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From then until now, followers of the path of Darwin have tried to support this assertion. But despite all the research that has taken place, the statement of "human evolution" has not been backed by concrete scientific research, particularly in the field of fossils.
The man on the street is mostly unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a wealth of hard evidence. The reason for this misjudgment is that the topic is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But the real experts are aware that there is no scientific basis for the affirmation of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard University, says:
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed little evidence that we would probably say, "Forget it, not enough to keep going." ((, Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.))
And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:
As we seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the audacity to say that there is "no doubt" how man originated. If only I had ...(( tests William R. Fix, hawkers Bone, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.))

This claim of evolution, it "lacks any evidence," the human family tree begins with a group of monkeys that have been claimed to constitute a distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the complaint, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and passed through a series of steps to reach the current state of man (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this hypothesis. Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an insurmountable barrier between the fossil remains of man and the apes. It has also shown that the species portrayed as species of other ancestors are actually contemporary who lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important promoters of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, states in his book One Long argument that "all historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult, and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation. " (( "Could science end to the belief of scientists who have final answers or by society's reluctance to pay the bills?" Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20.))

But what is the basis for human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Totally history, more than 6,000 ape species have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on earth. These 6,000 or more species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.
Moreover, there are considerable differences in the anatomical structure of the different human races. Moreover, differences have were even greater between prehistoric races, because as time has passed human races have to some extent mixed with each other and become assimilated. Despite therefore remain important differences seen between different population groups living in the world today, such as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, and many others.
There is no evidence to show that the hominid fossil named by evolutionary paleontologists actually not belong to different species of monkey or disappeared at the races of humans. To put it another way, no example of a transitional form between men and apes have been found.
After these general explanations, let's examine the hypothesis of human evolution together.
The imaginary tree Man
The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from a species of monkey-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to be party of from 4 to 5 million years, says that there was a "transitional form" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this scenario completely imaginary, the following four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecines (any of several forms which belong to the genus Australopithecus)
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged "Australopithecus" which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of monkey is extinct, is found in several different ways. Some of them are bigger and stronger (strong), while others are smaller and delicate (gracile).
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, which is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of today, ie the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed in the last stage of the evolution of this genus Homo.
Fossils like "Java Man, Peking Man," and "Lucy", which appear in the media occasionally and are found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups mentioned above. Each of these groups are also assumed that the branch of the species and subspecies, as appropriate.
Some suggested transitional forms of the past as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the tree the imaginary human family after they realized that the monkeys were normal.
By outlining the links in the chain as "Australopithecus> Homo habilis> Homo erectus> Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world simultaneously. Moreover, some humans are classified as Homo erectus probably lived until recently. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: potential contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia ", was reported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils in Java had" mean that the age of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years " and this "raise [s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) in Southeast Asia"
By Moreover, neandarthalensis Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim that the ancestors of humans, in fact belong to different human races, or more ape species.
Then which fossils are human and what are the apes? Is it possible for any of them to be considered a transitional form? With In order to find the answers, Let's look at each category.

Australopithecus: A species of ape
The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years, and lived until 1 million years. There are a number of different species among astralopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that would come A. African, and then A. Robustus, the bones, which is relatively large. As for A. boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a subspecies of A. robustus.
All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Its cranial capacity are the same or lower than chimpanzees today. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet used to climb trees, like chimpanzees today, and their feet are built to capture stick to the branches. They are short (130 cm maximum. (51 inches)) and like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Many other features, such as details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their jaw structure, its long arms and short legs are evidence that these creatures were no different from today's apes.
However, evolutionists claim that although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike of apes, which walked upright like humans.
This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been made for paleoanthropologists Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. However, many scientists who have conducted a broad front of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have demonstrated the invalidity of that argument. An extensive research in various Australopithecus specimens by two major renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these creatures walk upright in human form. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period 15 years by grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that the australopithecines were only one genus common monkey and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself. Consequently, Charles E. Oxnard, another evolutionist famous for its research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecus to that of modern orang-utans.
Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and are merely an extinct ape species.

Homo habilis: The monkey was presented as a human
The great similarity between the skeletal structures and skull of Australopithecus and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty paleoanthropologists evolutionists. The reason is that according to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus name Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a human species and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice that of Australopithecus. A direct transition Australopithecus, an ape chimpanzee, with Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from modern man, is out of the question, even according evolutionary theory. Therefore, "links", ie "transitional forms"-are necessary. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this need.
The classification of Homo habilis was filed in 1960 by Leakey, a family of "fossil hunters." According to Leakey, the new species, classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and use tools of stone and wood. Hence, might have been the ancestor of man.
New fossils of the same species discovered in the 1980s, would completely change this view. Some researchers, as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on the newly found fossils, said that Homo habilis (meaning "handy man", ie man capable of using tools) should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape", because Homo habilis had a lot of features in common with the ape Australopithecus. His long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure as Australopithecus. His hands and feet were suitable for climbing. His jaw was very similar to that of apes today. Its 600 cc middle cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were monkeys. In short, Homo habilis, which was submitted as a separate species by some evolutionists, was actually a species of monkey like all the other australopithecines.
Research in the years since Wood and Brace's work has shown that Homo habilis was indeed no different from Australopithecus. The skull and OH62 skeletal fossils found by Tim White showed that this species had a small brain size and long arms and short legs that enable them to climb trees like modern apes do.
The detailed analysis conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicate that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words, "human" at all, but rather unequivocally a "monkey". Speaking of the analysis made in the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;
Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens that meet these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis are classified with African apes. The Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans.
In the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through totally different method. This method is based on comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals of the inner ear of humans and apes, which provides balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:
Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of existing apes.
Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior that the australopithecines. "This means that the sample of Homo habilis was more ape-like Australopithecus species. This led to the conclusion that" Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and Homo erectus.
This finding yielded two important results:
1. Called Homo habilis fossils do not actually belong to the genus Homo, ie humans, but to that of Australopithecus, ie apes.
2. Both the Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped forward which is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have nothing to do with man.

Homo rudolfensis: The face unduly cumulative
Homo rudolfensis term is the name given to a few fragments of fossils found in 1972. The species supposedly represented for this fossil was named Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.
Richard Leakey, who unearthed fossils, presented the skull named "KNM-ER 1470, which said it was 2.8 million years, as the greatest discovery in the history of the anthropology. According to Leakey, this creature, who had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus together with a face similar to that of humans by day, was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. However, after a short time, they realized that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific journals and popular science magazines was the result of incorrect assembly of the fragments of skull, may have been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage, which conducts research on human facial anatomy, brought this to light with the help of computer simulations in 1992:
When [KNM-ER 1470] was reconstructed, the face was installed in the skull in a nearly vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans. However, recent studies anatomical relationships show that in the life of the face must have stuck out considerably, creating a mono-like appearance, rather like the faces of Australopithecus.
The evolutionary paleoanthropologist JE Cronin states the following about it:
... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattened naso-alveolar clivus, (remembering australopithecine faces served), low maximum cranial width (on time), canine juga and large molars strong (as shown in the remaining roots) are relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with the members of the taxon A. africanus.
C. Loring Brace of the University of Michigan reached the same conclusion. As a result of the analysis conducted in the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470, reported that "from the size of the palate and the enlargement of the area allotted to molar roots, it seems that the ER 1470 had a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition.
Professor Alan Walker, paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins University who has done much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintains that this creature should not be classified as a member of Homo-ie, as a human species, but rather should be placed in the genus Australopithecus.
In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis presented as a transitional link between Australopithecus and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are the species of apes.
This has been further established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in the journal Science. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that fossils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genus Australopithecus:
More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of absolute brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, and retrodictions on their ability to fashion stone tools. With only few exceptions, the definition and use of gender in human evolution, and the demarcation of Homo, have been treated as if they are not problematic. But ... recent data, new interpretations of existing evidence, and limitations of the registry paleoanthropological invalidate existing criteria for attributing taxa to Homo.
... in practice fossil hominin species are assigned to Homo on the basis of one or more of the four criteria. ... It is now clear, however, none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic because absolute cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance. There is also evidence compelling evidence that language function can not be reliably inferred from the appearance of the brain, and that language-related parts of the brain are not so well located as before studies have suggested ...
... In other words, the hypodigms H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assigned to the genus Homo is not a genre well. Thus, the H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato that do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "Homo") should be removed from Homo. The alternative taxonomic Obviously, that is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the first hominids existing genres, not without problems, but we recommend that, at present, both the H. habilis and H. rudolfensis must be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.
The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion that we have had here, "primitive human ancestors "do not exist in history. The creatures who is alleged that in reality are so cute they should be assigned to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record indicates that there is an evolutionary relationship between extinct apes and Homo, ie, human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record.

Homo erectus, and follows: human beings
Under the proposed scheme invented by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: Homo erectus First, then called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However, all these classifications are really only variations and unique races of the human family. The difference between them is not greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African or a pygmy and a European.
First look at Homo erectus, known as the most primitive human species. As its name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright". Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier, adding the qualifier "verticality" because all the fossils of Homo erectus are available directly to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern humans and Homo erectus.

The principal reason for evolutionists erectus Homo defined as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is lower than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people who now live in the world who have the cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for example) and other races that stand the eyebrows (Native Australians, for example).
This is an agreement, the fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the organization inside the brain, rather than in volume.
The fossils that have made Homo erectus, known throughout the world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. Without But the moment he realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking Man consists of some elements of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Man Java is "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was feet from him with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. Thus, fossils of Homo erectus in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It is also noted that some of the fossils say Homo erectus have been included in a second species called "Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among experts on this issue. Let to treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus)
The most famous specimens of Homo erectus in Africa is the fossil of Homo Narikotome erectus "or the" Turkana Boy ", which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The structure of the upright skeleton of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The paleoanthropologist American Alan Walker, said he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." ((Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, 19 November 1984.))
As for the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a man Neanderthal. "((Ibid.)) As discussed in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are nothing more than racial variations:
One also differ in the shape of the skull, the extent of protrusion of the face, strong eyebrows and so on. These differences are probably more pronounced than we see today days between the different geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other by periods significant time.
Professor William Laughlin of the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on islands Aleutian islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. Laughlin The conclusion reached was that all these different races were, in fact, different races of Homo sapiens (modern man).
When we consider the enormous differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, known belonging to the species Homo sapiens, it seems justified to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.
It is now a fact more pronounced in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens to be considered a separate species. In American Scientist, the discussions on this issue and the outcome of a conference on the theme in 2000 is summarized in this way:
Most participants in the Senckenberg conference has engaged in a debate about the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and his colleagues. He argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated complete. All members of the genus Homo about 2 million years to the present, was very variable, widespread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The theme of the conference, Homo erectus existed.
The conclusion reached by scientists from the defense of the thesis mentioned above can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species of Homo sapiens, but rather a race within Homo sapiens.
Moreover, there is a difference between Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis). This means that man first appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history. This is a clearer indication of his being created.
However, admit this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of the evolutionists. As a result, try to represent Homo erectus, a career truly human, half ape like creature. In their reconstructions Homo erectus, that tenacity draw ape characteristics. Moreover, with similar drawing methods, humanizing apes like Australopithecus or Homo habilis. With this method, which seek to "approximate" apes and humans and close the gap between these two different living classes.

Neanderthals
Neanderthals were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, who disappeared or were assimilated mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly larger.
Neanderthals were a human race, a fact conceded by almost everyone today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "kind primitive ", however, all findings indicate that they were no different from a man" robust "walk in the street today. A leading authority in the matter, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New Mexico, writes:
Complete comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.
Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a subspecies of modern man and call it "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The results testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities with Homo sapiens sapiens living in the same period. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time.

Homo sapiens archaic Homo Heilderbergensis and Cro-Magnon
Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists not have much to say about these fossils, the differences only very little between them and modern humans. Some researchers claim that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to native Australians as an example. Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have eyebrows Thick protruding an inward sloping jaw structure and a slightly smaller cranial capacity.
The group is characterized as heilderbergensis Homo in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as the archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two different terms are used to define the same human racial type is the disagreement among evolutionists. All the fossils included in the classification of Homo heidelbergensis suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000 years ago, first in England and then in Spain.
It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. It has a dome shaped skull and a wide forehead. His skull of 1,600 cc is above the current average man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion on the back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal and Homo erectus.
While Cro-Magnon is considered a European race, the structure and volume of Cro-Magnon skull closely resemble those of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Based on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some paleoanthropological other findings have shown that the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal races mixed and laid the groundwork for the careers of today.
As Consequently, none of these human beings are "primitive species. They were different human beings who lived in earlier times and either assimilated and mixed with other races, or became extinct and disappeared from history.

Species that live in the same age as their ancestors
What we have investigated so far form an idea clear: The scenario of "human evolution" is a fiction. For a tree as a family to represent the truth, a gradual evolution from ape to man must have taken place and a fossil record of this process must be able to find. In fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial capacity, and criteria such as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes.
Another significant finding that demonstrates that there can be no family relationship between these trees of different species is that species that occur as the ancestors of others, in fact, lived simultaneously. If, as evolutionists claim, Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which, in turn, became Homo erectus, the periods in which they lived should necessarily have followed each other. However, there is a timeline, as seen in the fossil record.
Estimated evolutionary Australopithecus lived from 4 million to 1 million years ago. The creatures classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, is believed to have lived up to 1,7 until 1,9 millones years ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as 2.5 to 2.8 million years! Is say, Homo rudolfensis is almost 1 million years older than Homo habilis, which is alleged to have been the "ancestor." Moreover, the age of Homo erectus goes back as 1.6-1.8 million years, which means that Homo erectus appeared on earth at the same time period as so-called ancestor, Homo habilis.
Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is no evidence from East Africa to survive the end of little guys who were contemporaries of Australopithecus first with H. habilis, then with the H. erectus. "((Alan Walker, Science, Vol 207, 1980, p. 1103.))
Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus almost next to each other in the region of the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, in layer II bed.
Definitely no such tree. Stephen Jay Gould, who was a paleontologist at Harvard University, explained this deadlock faced by evolution, although he was an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, Homo habilis and H.), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three show the evolution trends during his tenure on earth.
When we pass from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, we again see that there is no tree to speak. Evidence indicates that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued to live up to 27,000 years, even as recently as 10,000 years ago of our time. The Kow Swamp in Australia, around 13,000 years old Homo erectus skulls have been found. On the island of Java, Homo erectus remains were found that are 27,000 years old.

The Secret History of Homo Sapiens
The most interesting and significant that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly ancient history of modern man. Paleoanthropological results reveal that individuals homo sapiens, which was exactly like us lived up to 1 million years.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings on this issue. In 1932, in the Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that belong to the Middle Pleistocene, and were no different from modern man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years. Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, which were dismissed by some paleontologists evolutionists. But Leakey has always maintained that its estimates were correct.
Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed a remarkable manner the history of Homo sapiens was much larger than had been thought. The fossil in question was discovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of a child under 11 years of age that seemed quite as modern man. However, there were 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in his report December 1997 Issue.
This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:
We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know, something primitive. Our expectation of a 800,000-year-old was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face .... To me this is most spectacular of these are the kinds of things that are unsettling. Finding something totally unexpected like that. With no fossils, finding fossils is unexpected too, and that's fine. But the most spectacular thing is to find something that you believe belongs to the present, in the past. It's like finding something and a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We do not expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago-is the same thing. We were amazed when we saw him.
The fossil highlight the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800,000 years ago. After recovered from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that belonged to a different species, because, as the pedigree of evolution, Homo sapiens lived about 800,000 years. Therefore, consisting of imaginary species called Homo antecessor "and had the Skull Atapuerca in this classification.

A hut 1.7 million years
There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even before than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here at the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus species have coexisted in the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! Thus, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have coexisted approximately 1.7 million years. This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory which says that modern man evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

The footprints of modern humans 3.6 million years!
In fact, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man, again to 1.7 million years. One of the important findings is the footprints found at Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints are found in a layer that was calculated at 3.6 million years old, and most importantly, that no fingerprints were different from contemporary man would leave.
The footprints found by Mary Leakey more were later examined by a number of paleoanthropologists famous as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:
Make no mistake about ... They are like modern human footprints. If left in the sand on a California beach today, and a four year old asked what it was, instantly tell that someone had entered there. He would not be able to say that a hundred other prints on the beach, nor you. ((Donald C. Johanson & MA Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.))
After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of Northern California, made the following comments:
The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a larger arc than me and big toe is large and aligned with the second toe ... The toes grip the ground like human toes. I do not see this in animal shapes. ((Science News, Vol 115, 1979, p. 196-197.))
Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again they had to be accepted as the footprints of a human being, and also a modern man (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also reviewed the footsteps wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them ... In all morphological features discernible, the feet of the people who made the tracks are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger. They were certainly modern people like us.
This situation put the Laetoli footprints in the center of debate for years. Evolutionary paleontologists tried desperately to reach an explanation, because it was difficult for them to accept the fact that modern man has been walking on earth 3.6 million years ago. During the 1990s, the following "explanation" began to take shape: The evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a species Homo have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote in an article in 1990:
In sum, 3.5 million years, the features of the mark on the Laetoli site G resemble those of modern humans usually barefoot. None of its characteristics suggest that the Laetoli bipedal hominids were less capable than us. If the traces do not know that G is so old, that could easily conclude that it was made by a member of our genus, Homo ... In any case, we leave aside the case of losing the Laetoli footprints to be realized foreign Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis.
In short, these tracks that were supposed to be 3.6 million years ago could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason the tracks are believed to have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6 million year old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus only on the assumption that people human could not have lived long ago.
These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory is not based on scientific findings, but despite them. Here is a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory question that is ignored or distorted to support the theory.
In short, the theory of evolution is not science, is a dogma kept alive despite science.

The impasse of the evolution of upright walking
Apart from the fossil record we have discussed so far, unbridgeable anatomical differences between the men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with the way you walk.
Humans walking on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion not seen in any other species of mammals. Some other animals have a limited ability to move when its two hind legs. Animals such as bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, and when they wish to reach a food source, and even then only for a short time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and walk on all fours.
Well, then, has evolved bipedalism from quadrupedal gait of apes, as evolutionists claim?
Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism never happened, nor is it possible to have. First Instead, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way the monkeys move is much easier, faster and more efficient than man's bipedal stride. Man can not move, jumping from tree to tree without descending to earth, like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 mph, like a cheetah. By contrast, since man walks on two feet, moves much more slowly in soil. For the same reason, he is one of the most vulnerable of all species in the wild in terms of movement and defense. According to the logic of the theory of evolution, the monkeys have not evolved to adopt a bipedal step, human beings place should have evolved to be a quadruped.
Another dead end of the claim of evolution is that bipedalism does not serve the "development progressive "model of Darwinism. This model, which is the basis of evolution, requires that there be a" compound ", step between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. Without But with the computerized research done in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton showed that a "composite" step was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can walk upright or on all fours. ((Ruth Henke, "Aus den Aufrecht Bäumen", Focus, Vol 39, 1996, p. 178.)).
A kind of step between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. This is the biped By what means can not exist.
The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained, as the brain's ability, the ability to speak, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession on this subject:
Four of mysteries Top on humans are: 1) Why walk on two legs? 2) Why have lost their skin? 3) Why have developed such large brains? 4) Why learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) "I do not know", 2) "I do not know" 3) "I do not know", 4) "I do not know." The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of responses.

Evolution: an unscientific faith
Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the UK. During , studied the fossil record and carried out many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the nobility for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. As Therefore, his comments on evolution can not be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the hypothesis of human evolution, however, concluded that there is no truth in the family tree is presented.
Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific", ie based on concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and social sciences. At the other end of the spectrum, which is the part that is considered more "scientific" are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and the "sixth sense" and finally "human evolution". Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:
Then, move right to cancel the registration of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or interpretation of the fossil history of man, where the faithful anything is possible - and where passionate believer is sometimes able believe several contradictory things at once.
Robert Locke, the editor of archaeological discovery, a major publication on the origins of man, writes in this magazine, "The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light, "quoting the confession of the famous evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim White:
We are all frustrated by "all the questions that have not been able to respond. "
Locke article reviews the current deadlock of the theory of evolution in the origins of man and mootness propaganda on this subject:
Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists are agreement on even the most basic outline of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.
The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, editor of the journal called Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points that all the evidence for human evolution "between 10 and 5 million years, several thousand generations of living creatures can fit in a box small. "He concludes that conventional theories about the origin and development of human beings are" entirely a human invention, created after the fact, shaped in accordance with human prejudices "and adds:
To have a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as that story, funny, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
So what is the reason that makes many scientists as tenacious of this dogma? Why have they been trying very hard to keep his theory alive at the expense of admitting the many conflicts and discard the evidence found?
The only answer is their fear that they will encounter in case of abandonment the theory of evolution. The fact they will face when they leave the evolution is that God created man. However, taking into account budgets haves and the materialist philosophy that they believe the creation is a concept unacceptable to the evolutionists.
For this reason, they are fooling themselves, and the world, using media with which they cooperate. If they can find fossils is necessary, "make" either of Tables imaginary or fictitious models and try to give the impression that indeed there are fossils of monitoring situations. A portion of the media who share their materialistic viewpoint are also trying to mislead the public and to instill the history of evolution in the subconscious of people.
No matter how hard you try, the truth is obvious: the man has not come into existence through an evolutionary process, but by God's creation. Therefore, it is responsible to he.

Please see things in this book to learn more about the origin of life of others:
Refuted Darwinism (Book):
PDF File format:
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=85&Format=pdf

Word File Format:
http://api.fmanager.net/api_v1/xmlapi.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&with=mod=file, id = 13,732

Another useful book and website in different languages:
Evolution Deceit (Book):
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=462&Format=pdf
Website:
www.evolutiondeceit.com

Darwin's imagination
The person who presented the theory of evolution in the way that defends today was an amateur English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin.
Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. It took only one interest amateur in the field of nature and living things. His interest spurred him to voluntarily join an expedition aboard a ship called the HMS Beagle, which departed England in 1832 and traveled through different regions of the world for five years. The young Darwin was impressed by different species of life, especially finches certain that he saw in the Galapagos Islands. I thought that variations in the peaks were caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this in mind, it is assumed that the origin of life and species found in the concept of "adaptation to the environment". Darwin opposed the fact that God created different living species separately, which suggests that it did not come from a common ancestor and differ from each other as a result of natural conditions.
Darwin's hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment, over time however that turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from materialistic biologists famous of his time. The idea was that individuals that were adapted to the habitat of the best qualities transferred to subsequent generations, these qualities advantageous in the accumulated over time and transformed the individual in a totally different species from their ancestors. (The origin of these "advantageous qualities" was unknown at the time.) According to Darwin, man was the result of this mechanism more developed imagination.
Darwin called this process "evolution by natural selection." He thought he had found the "origin of species": the origin of a species was another species. He published these ideas in his book entitled The Origin of Species through natural selection in 1859.
Darwin was aware that his theory faces many problems. He confessed this in his book chapter "Difficulties theory. These difficulties mainly consisted of the fossil record, the complex organs of living beings could not be explained by the coincidence (eg the eye), and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome by new discoveries, however this will not stop coming up with a series very inadequate explanations for some. The American physicist Lipson made the comment about the "difficulties" of Darwin:
After reading The Origin species, I found that Darwin was much less sure of himself than is often depicted to be, the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the theory," For example, programs of self-doubt considerable. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have occurred. ((HS Lipson, "View a physicist at the theory of Darwin, evolutionary trends in plants, Vol 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.))
While developing his theory, Darwin was impressed by many evolutionary biologists who preceded him, and especially by the French biologist Lamarck. According to him, living beings rose from the traits they have acquired during their lifetime from one generation to the next and thus evolved. For instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like animals by extending their necks further and further from one generation to another as they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food. Darwin used this way the thesis of "passing of acquired characteristics, proposed by Lamarck, as the factor that made living things evolve.
But both Darwin and Lamarck wrong because in his day, life could only be studied with very primitive technology at a very inadequate. Scientific fields such as genetics and biochemistry did not exist even in the name. Their theories therefore had to rely entirely on their powers of imagination.
While the echoes of Darwin's book reverberated, a botanist Austrian by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. Soon after, he discovered the structure of genes and chromosomes. The discovery in the decade 1950, the structure of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a major crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin.
These developments should have led to Darwin's theory being banished to the dustbin history. However, it was because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing and raising the scientific theory to a platform. These efforts acquire meaning only if we realize that behind the theory was ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.

Links interest:
Videos:
THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245

The collapse of atheism:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1244

THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE:
http://harunyahya.com/m_video_creation_universe.php

The miracle of man's creation:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1249

Books:

The Collapse of the Theory Evolution in 20 questions:
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Disasters Darwinism brought to humanity:
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=74&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
Million tests that refute Darwinism
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=4813&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
A Reply to propaganda evolutionary definitive:
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=210&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
How Evolution Overturned fossil
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=4813&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Religion of Darwinism
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=1959&Format=rtf
=*=*=*=*=
Not by chance:
http://fs.www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=1815&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
A Definitive Reply to Evolutionist Propaganda
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=210&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
Why Darwinism is incompatible with the Koran:
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=208&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Disasters Darwinism brought to humanity
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=74&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
Fascism The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=225&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Dark Spell of Darwinism
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=2182&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=
The Golden Age
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=1462&Format=pdf
=*=*=*=*=

=* For any Help FEEL FREE TO E-MAIL ME ON *=
smiling4ever222@hotmail.com

Annie's Homegrown Berry Patch Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks, 5-Count Pouches (Pack of 4) List Price: $21.52 Sale Price: $16.55 You save: $4.97 (23%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Organic Berry patch bunny fruit snacks are a delicious mix of strawberry, cherry and raspberry flavored bunnies. Certified organic, these bunny-shaped fruit snacks are made with real fruit juice and packed with 100% daily value of vitamin C. Features Case of four, 4-ounce boxes (total of 16 ounces) Three delicious, all natural flavors in every pouch: strawberry, cherry, and raspberry Certified organic; made with real fruit juice Vegan; gelatin free, fat free; and naturally gluten free 5 packets, 0.8oz per box Reviews tasty snack by Play Money from on 2010-08-07 these are very flavorful fruit snacks. My kids and i prefer them to others that have many more unhealthy ingredients. they are pricey, but anything that says organic tends to be. Love these! by T. Grahek from Minneapolis, MN on 2010-07-28 My daughter reacts badly to red dye 40 (temper outbursts) and we cut all fruit snacks and the like out of her diet. I didn't try these fruit snacks for a long time because they were expensive but getting them cheaper here helped. All of my kids love them and I do too! They are a great lunch box dessert and I am excited to have coming by the case. Good product, HORRIBLE VALUE by Billy Gilliam from Las Vegas, NV on 2010-07-23 You are paying $16.55 for 20 small (really small) packages that a kid could swallow in one bite if he wanted to. I have no idea how this item got so many positive reviews. Was very tempted to give it 1 star, but the product does taste good and is healthy, but 1400 calories for $16.55, you have to be kidding me Annie! My 2-yr. old loves these! by Regina A. McLenon from Kansas on 2010-07-16 These organic fruit snacks are yummy, gummy (but not too gummy), and when my 2 yr. old son wants them instead of the real deal, I don't feel too guilty. Finally! A Tasty, Convenient Vegan 'Gummy' Treat! by goonius from a room in a house on a street in a city just like any other. on 2010-05-25 What's the best thing about Annie's Gummy Bunnies? They're gelatin-free. And frankly 'm a fan of candy sans rendered hooves, bones and skin. Vegetarian gummies are a darn-near impossible thing to find. These are available in al our local grocery stores.Of course, the next-best-thing about these little candies are that they taste good. Sweet, a little tangy. Slightly chewy, but with more of a sticky consistency than traditional gelatin-containing gummy characters, which have a rubber-like consitency. They do, in fact, taste like fruit. I'm not sure why that offends some reviewers, but to each their own, I suppose.I love them, and so do my kids. We use them for my chocolate-intolerant daughter as potty-time treats. They're candy, not health food - don't let the 'organic' and all-natural things fool you into thinking otherwise. But they're candy like candy should be. Good old-fashioned sugar, natural flavorings, natural colors, vs. all-too-common nasty, high-fructose corn-syrup, artificial flavors, artificial colors candy.Are you going to pay an arm and a leg for them? Of course! But if you're vegan or vegetarian you're probably already used to paying more for a shorter/more natural list of ingredients. My advice: Savor them. They're a treat!

Annie's Homegrown Tropical Treat Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks, 4.0 Ounce Boxes (Pack of 4) List Price: $21.52 Sale Price: $16.55 You save: $4.97 (23%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Organic tropical treat bunny fruit snacks are a delicious mix of mango-peach, tropical punch and orange flavored bunnies. Certified organic, these bunny-shaped fruit snacks are made with real fruit juice and packed with 100% daily value of vitamin c. Features Case of four, 4-ounce boxes (total of 16 ounces) Certified organic and made with real fruit juice Vegan, gelatin free, fat free, and naturally gluten free 100% recommended daily value of Vitamin C 5 packets, 0.8oz per box Reviews Pretty Good by Purdue Girl from Indiana on 2010-07-11 I want to point out that these are definitely fruit snacks and not like gummy bears. I searched gummies and these came up, so I decided to try them. The flavor is really good, and I love that they're organic. They come in individual packs in each box, so they're easy to take with you. They make everyone super thirsty, though. Overall, I'd recommend them. Just be sure to have some water. Good taste, weird consistency by Robyn from Missouri on 2010-05-23 I bought these at the grocery store, excited - hoping they would be something fantastic. They have a great flavor to them but the get really soft and sticky and fall apart in your mouth...just a really weird consistency, never had a candy like that before. I can see where some people would like them, but my boyfriend and I didn't care for them too much. We ate the whole box of them because of the good flavor, but overall I would not buy these again. Wonderful by Sandra Crytzer from on 2010-02-21 These bunnies are a big hit here. My three year old son just loves them and thinks they are candy. The best organic snax! by Art E. Misia from USA on 2010-02-10 Organic, made with fruit juice,no preservatives, no high-fructose corn syrup, etc. And they taste better than any other gummy candy I've tried. What more could you ask for? Well, I do wish they were less expensive, but the adage "you get what you pay for" certainly applies here, and purchasing from amazon was less expensive than the supermarket. Highly recommended. I can't say enough good things about these. Great organic snack for kids! by A. Bromley from Virginia, USA on 2010-01-26 My kids love these bunnies. They are much healthier than other gummy-type snacks, so I don't have to worry about them having these once and a while. A good price also.

Peter Rabbit Organics, Organic Apple and Grape 100% Pure Fruit Snack, 3.5-Ounce Pouches (Pack of 10) List Price: $19.00 Sale Price: $16.50 You save: $2.50 (13%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Peter Rabbit Organics 100% fruit snacks are ideal for babies and children. They contain 100% organic fruit with no added sugar or artificial ingredients. The convenient squeezable pouch means there is no need for a spoon. The pouches are resealable which makes them a great snack for children whenever you are out and about or to feed your baby at the start of weaning. We don't add water only natural fruit, so each 3.5oz pouch counts as one of your child's 'five a day'. You can contact us with any questions at peter@prorganics.com Features 100% Fruit No added Sugar 100% USDA Organic Nothing Artificial No added water Reviews Peter Rabbit Organics Apple and Grape by goodegirl from on 2010-08-02 I am constantly on the go and fast food is not a good option even though it is "fast". This item says its for children, but "big kids" like me love taking a few of these on the go so when I get real hungry, I can curve my appetite by putting a quick healthy snack into my system unitl I can get a healthy meal in. Perfect for on-the-go families! by Tammy from on 2010-07-30 We first saw these at Starbucks, and picked them up as a special treat. I love that they are 100% organic and they're in neat little no-mess pouches. My 8 y/o loves them in his lunch! He also eats a banana mix pouch on the way to his sports practices (he used to eat a jar of banana baby food, but that was getting too embarrassing for him -- and for some reason, bananas on the counter manage to turn brown before they're eaten -- guess banana in the peel is not as attractive as banana in a pouch). I've read some people ranting about the sugar content, but there is no added sugar. It's only the sugar from the fruit itself -- if you're that concerned about sugar, don't eat fruit. We love them!! 19g of sugar in 100g portion by Irina Zlatkina from Baltimore, MD USA on 2010-07-29 19g is about 4 tsp of sugar. Just do simple calculations: would you put 4 tsp of sugar in your cup of coffee? We're talking about 4 tsp for 240 ml. Now here you have a 100g pouch, 19g of which is sugar, this would be equivalent to 10 tsp of sugar in your cup of coffee. It's insane. Organic doesn't always guarantee you a healthy product, read the nutritional panel. Delicious! by Patricia Mckenzie from San Diego, CA, US on 2010-03-29 My niece and her 8 y/o and 3 y/o visited my 9 and 10 y/o, from the east coast. We were at Starbuck's getting coffee. Our children saw Peter Rabbit Organics Apple and Grape and asked us if they could try it. We bought them the Peter Rabbit Organics Apple and Grape and when they were done eating it, all the time they were raving about how good it is, wanted more Peter Rabbit Organics Apple and Grape. Later, my children kept asking me to buy more so I went online to find out where I could purchase them. I found that Amazon.com sold them and in other flavors. I bought 1 box of each flavor. My niece also purchased them from Amazon. Peter Rabbit Organics 100% Pure Fruit Snack is great for everyone! I would recommend you buy it for your children and try it yourself. Do not taste natural to me by Becky from Chicago, IL USA on 2010-03-03 The apple and grape taste a little actificial even thought I know that there's no additives. Maybe because me and my babies are used to the homemade applesauce that I made for my babies, which is far better than this pouches.

Peter Rabbit Organics, Organic Mango, Banana and Orange 100% Pure Fruit Snack, 3.5-Ounce Pouches (Pack of 10) List Price: $19.00 Sale Price: $16.50 You save: $2.50 (13%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Peter Rabbit Organics 100% fruit snacks are ideal for babies and children. They contain 100% organic fruit with no added sugar or artificial ingredients. The convenient squeezable pouch means there is no need for a spoon. The pouches are resealable which makes them a great snack for children whenever you are out and about or to feed your baby at the start of weaning. We don't add water only natural fruit, so each 3.5oz pouch counts as one of your child's 'five a day'. You can contact us with any questions at peter@prorganics.com Features 100% Fruit No added Sugar 100% USDA Organic Nothing Artificial No added water Reviews my daughter loves these! by sjm501 from on 2010-08-28 Originally found these at Starbucks. Ordering by the case is less expensive. My 5 yr old loves them and they are great for fruit in lunch boxes or a snack, she drinks it! Great for 3 year old and mommy, too! by Emm from Virginia, USA on 2010-08-15 My three year old has started the picky eater phase.... she used to eat all of the lovely fruits and veggies I put in front of her. Not anymore. But she LOVES this and can take it with her in the car, the stroller, in the bike trailer and no mess. Plus, it is TASTY --- much yummier than a pudding cup or something dastardly like that and REAL FRUIT! Finally a snake truce! Yummy, convenient, but too expensive by R. Dorman from on 2010-04-15 My daughter first tried a similar organic fruit snack in a pouch at Starbucks and had to have more. These little pouches are very yummy, healthy and the packaging is very convenient. I bought a case of them and she requests them all the time. However, they are quite expensive, so I limit how many she can have in a day. TOO SWEET!!! by Marta Obosky from NJ on 2010-03-30 This product is way too sweet!!! Yes, it tastes yummy but is so sweet that my kids don't even want to eat it!! It's also mostly banana! From my experience, anything that has banana added makes the fruit way too sweet. The one's without banana taste great and are well worth the purchase!! Fruit by S. White from Sylmar, CA on 2010-03-23 This is the best fruit. I freeze them and put them in my kids lunch box. This flavor is best!!!!!

Annie's Homegrown Sunny Citrus Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks, 4-Ounce Boxes (Pack of 4) List Price: $17.96 Sale Price: $16.55 You save: $1.41 (8%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Sunny Citrus fruit snacks offer a burst of all-natural lemon, lime, and orange flavors. Certified organic, these bunny-shaped fruit snacks are made with real fruit juice and packed with 100% daily recommended value of Vitamin C. Features Three delicious, all natural, organic flavors in every pouch: lemon, lime, and orange. Certified organic and made with real fruit juice Vegan, gelatin free, fat free, and naturally gluten free 100% recommended daily value of Vitamin C 5 packets, 0.8oz per box Reviews Annie's fruit snacks by T. Swanby from Superior, WI on 2010-08-02 Our son loved these fruit snacks and it was nice knowing they are made from real fruit juices, etc. All around excellent! by OregonMomOf3 from on 2010-07-06 I am extremely happy with these fruit snacks. My children love them and are a healthier alternative to other "fruit" snacks out there. Plus, getting them from Amazon is super easy and I'm going to sign up for auto-delivery so we never run out! annie fruit snacks by from on 2010-06-10 great producet, my grandson loves them... worth the price. not filled with all the junk the other snacks offer...... great price too AWESOME ORGANIIC REAL FRUIT SNACK FOR ALL AGES! MY WHOLE FAMILIE LOVES THESE! SOFT AND CHEWY NOT HARD! by Mrs. R. Henderson from LOWER ALABAMA USA on 2010-05-25 Everyone in my family loves these delicious real food gummies. Annies has went above and beyond with the creation of this delicious flavor. My grandkids ages 1 to 5 and my kids 9 and 12 ask for these constantly. They love them so much, that I have to get me a pack when I first open a box ,or I will not get any. All the Annie gummy bunies are great. yummy & safe to eat! by rural girl from USA on 2010-05-01 These are real food! Absolutely delicious and no nasty chemicals, additives or preservatives. They are gummy, but a nice heavy gummy that must come from the sunflower oil they use. The flavor is terrific and I ate them much too quickly. I also gave little baggies to friends who have since bought boxes as well >>> buy a box! Support Annie's, healthy food and enjoy a healthy snack!

Kettle Valley Certified Organic Real Fruit Snack, Strawberry, 0.7-Ounce Bars (Pack of 30) List Price: $23.40 Sale Price: $18.00 You save: $5.40 (23%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Kettle Valley’s Fruit Snacks are increasingly popular as consumers choose Real 100% Fruit Snacks over the sugar-based, less-than-natural fruit snacks. Kettle Valley Fruit Snacks are 100% natural, containing no preservatives or added sugar, artificial colors or flavors. Suitable for low glycemic index and diabetic diets. Features Pack of 30 .7-ounce bars (total of 21 ounces) An apple in every bar USDA certified organic, all-natural, high-fiber, no sugar added Easy to chew, soft texture (not leathery) Product of Canada Reviews Love them! by Nate from on 2009-11-09 I bought these for my daughter as a healthy snack for her. She loves them, I love them. We easily went through all 30. The flavor, texture and health factor are all good. I would suggest these to anyone. =) Great snack/treat for kids!!! Much better than "leathers" by NaturallyMama from Northwest, FL on 2009-02-19 These are great! My almost 3 year old loves these! I think he'd probably eat any flavor of them though. I love this brand because they are so soft and much easier for him to eat than the fruit "leathers". We've tried the fruitabu smooshed fruit as well as their regular fruit leathers and quite frankly the "smooshed" fruit ones are not a single bit different in texture than their regular leathers. But the kettle valley are so totally different the flavor is alot stronger and, well, better, but again the texture is much better and these don't get all sticky like the others. I don't feel bad giving these to my son when he just wants a snack or something sweet. We don't allow "candy" other than an occasional organic lollipop. Also I have tried the non organic versions of these as well and they are just as good, and cost a bit less.My husband likes them as well, he says he really doesn't care which ones I order but I think he does seem to "prefer" the kettle valley ones. Great snack for all. by Samantha Chaintreuil from Lee Center, NY United States on 2009-02-02 My husband and I are addicted to these fruit snacks. I love that they are a sweet treat without being junk; each bar is a serving of fruit. I often bring these as a snack for my nephew and he really likes them. It is a little deceiving because even though they say they are strawberry fruit snacks they are mostly made of apple unlike some other natural fruit snacks. I still love them and with amazon subscription we never run out. wonderful flavor by L. Ferguson from Fairbanks, AK on 2006-06-26 So nice to get good food without added sugar, fake sugar or bad chemicals!!! VERY nice snack to take along!

Annie's Homegrown Organic Snack Mix, Bunnies, 9-Ounce Boxes (Pack of 4) List Price: $19.96 Sale Price: $16.62 You save: $3.34 (17%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Pretzels, bite-size crackers, and bunnies galore! Three delicious and complementary flavors—cheddar, buttery rich, and pretzel—are brought together in one colorful box. Kids and adults will love the adorable bunny-shaped pretzels and crackers. Try them one at a time, or unite them in a mouthful! Simply irresistible. Features Certified organic snack mix with three delicious and complementary flavors - cheddar cracker, buttery rich crackers, and pretzels. Made with real, organic cheese 0g trans fats and 0g saturated fats No GMOs, no cholesterol No artifical flavors, colors, or preservatives Reviews Annie's Snack Mix by Mark Amantia from Titusville, NJ USA on 2010-07-25 Annie's Snack Mix is a tasty mix of different snacks that really tastes good. My kids really like it. The problem is that they eat them so quickly! Yum by jen from on 2010-06-21 This is a very tasty snack mix. Its pretty simple because its only cheddar bunnies, parmesan bunnies, and pretzel bunnies, but they are delicious and my kids love them! My Favorite! by E. Barber from on 2010-02-06 These are my favorite bunnies that Annie's makes. I am a teacher and whenever I bring them in other teachers always snack on them too. Very popular with my 8 year old daughter also! My kids won't eat it. by Kate from montclair, nj on 2010-01-14 We love Annie's bunny crackers and cookies- in fact, pretty much every other product. These crackers were horrible, though. The saltine-type crackers taste very bad.

HAPPYMETLS Organic Yogurt Snacks for Babies & Toddlers, Mixed Berry, 1-Ounce Pouch (Pack of 8) List Price: $33.52 Sale Price: $26.51 You save: $7.01 (21%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Dr. Sears recommends all natural organic food for babies' developing bodies. Only organic dairy products are free of growth hormones & pesticides. That's why we only use the highest quality organic yogurt to give your baby, HAPPYMELTS, a wholesome organic treat that tastes great! Features Always organic, no GEIs.. Melts in Baby's mouth - no mess Delicious freeze dried yogurt snacks - no frigeration needed pre and probiotics, high protein and low sugar, suplemented with vitamin D and calcium. Portable Packaging, Bpa Free Reviews BEST SNACK EVER! by M. Johnson from mke on 2010-08-13 My daughter loves these yogurt melts. They are so healthy and yet she thinks they are a dessert. Gerber makes a similar product, which is just as good, except these are organic. Love that I can find 8 packs of them on Amazon. I have a hard time finding them in stores. tasty, but unpredictable sizes by mk from Massachusetts, USA on 2010-06-27 I like these yogurt melts as a healthier alternative to those available in my grocery store, but I wish the sizes were a little more predictable. Some of the melts are tiny, while some are nearly an inch in diameter! I also agree with the reviewer who said they would like to see a variety pack instead of having to buy several packs of a single flavor. Yummy snack! by Z. Fewtrell from washington,dc on 2010-05-31 My 8 month old loves these yogurt melts. They are super easy to dissolve and taste amazing. The fact that they are organic and support Project Peanut Butter in Africa is a plus. Tasty and organic! by Kristen O'donnell from San Francisco, CA on 2010-04-05 I have 12 month olds and no time to write a great review, but they like all the flavors, the textures are great, and the pouches open easily. Great on the go snack. Wish they came in bigger servings. Great treat! by K. Weaver from Montana on 2010-03-03 These are such a wonderful alternative to the non-organic, sugar filled ones you find in your basic stores. The melts are very tasty (I have tried them) but are not all the same size so for new solid food eaters you may need to watch which sizes they are given. Have not tried the other flavors yet but plan to get them. Wish they would sell a varity pack instead of having to buy 8 of one flavor.

Kettle Valley Certified Organic Real Fruit Snack, Berry Blend, 0.7-Ounce Bars (Pack of 30) List Price: $23.40 Sale Price: $18.00 You save: $5.40 (23%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description Kettle Valley’s Fruit Snacks are increasingly popular as consumers choose Real 100% Fruit Snacks over the sugar-based, less-than-natural fruit snacks. Kettle Valley Fruit Snacks are 100% natural, containing no preservatives or added sugar, artificial colors or flavors. Suitable for low glycemic index and diabetic diets. Features Pack of 30 .7-ounce bars (total of 21 ounces) An apple in every bar USDA certified organic, all-natural, high-fiber, no sugar added Easy to chew, soft texture (not leathery) Product of Canada Reviews great healthy snack by J. Harvey from Bucks County, PA on 2009-12-06 My daughter (age 2) loves this snack. She's been eating them as a 'treat' since 18 mo. Unlike fruit roll-ups this product is actual fruit. You can see the difference immediately and taste the fruit. No preservatives. Best on the market by KonaChris from Hawaii on 2006-05-02 Don't understand the previous concern - these are the best fruit snack bars on the market. They taste amazing and put the 'fruit leather' stuff to shame. I find the fruit leather to be tough and just like leather, but these are soft and bursting with flavor! Too bad they are so hard to find, can't find them at stores like Whole Foods - thank God for the internet! You won't regret these bars if you are out for a healthy and very delicious snack! Delicious organic fruit leather... by Phillip Roncoroni from Manhattan, New York on 2006-02-10 This fruit snack is really just fruit leather. That is, they smush together an organic apple and other berry fruits, don't add any sugar or perservatives, and put in it a pouch as a strip. They're not fruit "snacks" in the traditional sense, with small shapes and such.Anyway, they're organic, pretty cheap, and taste really nice. 70 calories each, and healthy.

Sensible Foods Organic Crunch Dried Snacks, Apple Harvest, 0.75-Ounce, 12-Count Pouches List Price: $21.36 Sale Price: $16.43 You save: $4.93 (23%)   Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Average Rating: Description The seed that sprouted into Sensible Foods was planted in Sono ma County, California, by Bob and David, two sensible guys who are committed to healthy living for themselves and their families. Their quest was to create a munchy crunchy snack that was both delicious and nutritious, that everyone would enjoy. The goal was realized when they perfected the unique crunch dried process for fruits and vegetables and the results were extraordinary! It is an intensely flavorful snack that's naturally sweet, crunchy, convenient and so incredibly sensible. Here at Sensible Foods we are pleased to offer delicious and nutritious snacks from our family to yours, a product of the USA. Features Case of twelve 0.75-ounce pouches (total of 9 ounces) Organic mix of apples; each pouch equal to 1/2-cup fresh fruit 100 percent organic and All-natural; No fat; Gluten or GMO; No preservatives Shelf life of more than one year; Unique process removes water and preserves nutritional value and natural flavor Product of California Reviews Not good for a toddler by Agent 609 from Ventura, CA USA on 2010-09-03 They're alright. But not what I expected. I was hoping it would be more like the other brands of dried apples - crispy, but then melt in your mouth. I bought these for my toddler, but the pieces are big, hard, and do not melt in your mouth. I'm afraid they present a bit of a choking hazard for a one year old.On the bright side - they are NOT made in China! I suppose if you're into dried apples for yourself, they should work. great fruit snack by Helen M. Broome from GAINESVILLE FL on 2010-06-21 I really like these fruit snacks. Very healthy and easy to used in my diet. Delicious and Sensible food by D. Mauro from New Jersey on 2010-01-30 These snacks are so very delicious. I am always looking for a healthy snack and I was pleasantly surprised when I found Sensible Foods.They are so satisfying and delicious that I my biggest problem is having enough in the house.My sons love them and that is always a great thing. I am so very pleased that they grab for these healthy snacks rather than junk.I highly recommend this product. Just make sure to buy alot...they will disappear quickly. Not For Me by Tulor from Richmond, VA USA on 2009-10-12 Everyone in my office loves these except for me. It does not suit my taste. However, since everyone's tastebuds are different, you may need to try them for yourself. Awesome! by Beach lover from Florida on 2009-07-31 I remember eating these in the 70's... probably a different brand, but the same taste and crunch! These are awesome for a quick snack on the go. They stay crunchy and fresh and you will polish off a bag in no time, so there is no worry about storage after the bag is opened. One downside... they are expensive. I actually tried to 'make these' in my food dehydrator. Not at all the same crunch and flavor. These are the best that I have tried anywhere and I have tried a lot of different brands. The Apple is the best of this brand :) All natural too and healthy!

Tags: members mark trail mix

This entry was posted on Friday, March 26th, 2010 at 12:01 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.