Attempt to Direct Public Opinion with a Skull Pulled from Storage 35 Years LaterAn article published in the September 2025 issue of Science magazine presented the Yunxian 2 fossil as a "turning point in evolution." However, the reshaping of this fossil, discovered 35 years ago, appears more like an effort to direct public perception than a scientific discovery.
The fragmented Yunxian 2 fossil, found in China in 1990, was reshaped 35 years later and claimed to "push back the history of evolution by 400,000 years." However, this claim recalls controversial reconstructions like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man from the past.
As it will be remembered, evolutionists have, in the past, fabricated “half-human” families from nothing more than a single pig tooth, created fake species by attaching an orangutan jaw to a human skull, and presented modified fossils that were artificially made to resemble humans — all of which have been documented numerous times.
First, it should be reminded that it is assumed that there have been hundreds of monkey species to date, including extinct chimpanzees. The bones of examples of these creatures that lived ages ago are seen as a rich resource to make evolutionists' imaginary scenarios convincing and are frequently used. Evolutionists try to relate them to evolution by ranking extinct monkey fossils according to their skull volumes and bone features and placing a human skull at the end. The subject of this article is the perception game played on the Yunxian 2 fossil, which is a species of extinct monkey.
THE DECEPTION IN THE YUNXIAN 2 FOSSIL
In 1990, in China's Hubei Province, two skull fossils that had slipped over each other and become deformed were found: The Yunxian 1 and Yunxian 2 fossils were crushed and fragmented.
In the picture, three skulls are visible. The crushed and assembled skull named Yunxian 1 on the far left, and the similarly crushed and assembled crooked skull named Yunxian 2 found in the same place on the far right. In the middle is the imaginary skull model where bones were rearranged, additions and manipulations were made to make it resemble a human face.
The fossils in question were shelved for 35 years during the period they were found because they were not seen as suitable to support the claims of evolution advocates. However, there was a need for "human-like transitional forms" to ensure the continuity of evolutionary claims in public opinion. Therefore, chimpanzee-like faces resembling humans needed to take the stage.
Even if it didn't exist in reality, in evolutionary logic, the fact that such a transitional form could not be found in nature did not mean it "could not be fabricated in the workshop." Indeed, two skulls that were incompatible in form were brought back to the agenda by adding missing bones for the continuation of perception in public opinion.
In this direction, after 35 years, the skull fragments in question were taken down from the shelves, CT-scanned, and remodeled and combined in a computer environment in a "SPECULATION-BASED" manner by the Chinese researcher Feng Xiaobo and his team, known for their dogmatic obsession with the evolution idea. However, the skull was designed with a "FLAT AND DOWNWARDLY ELONGATED" face to make it "resemble humans more," and the skull was reshaped accordingly.
The skull, reshaped entirely on personal opinions and preferences away from scientificity in the computer, was associated with a species known as Homo Longi (long-faced), presented as an example of an imaginary transitional form.
RECONSTRUCTION DECEPTION
On the other hand, the Reconstruction practice, which evolutionary paleontologists and physical anthropologists frequently resort to when assembling and combining bone pieces, is a controversial and scandalous method because imaginary results can be obtained with this method without any scientific basis; in other words, the 'human-like' monkeys needed for perception can be easily produced in workshops with 3D printers."The article admits that MISSING ZYGOMATIC BONES WERE ADDED LATER in the Yunxian fossils. This is a critical intervention that changes the face shape and questions the scientific reliability of the study.
"Yes, you heard it right: MAKING ADDITIONS THAT DID NOT EXIST AT ALL.
However, cheekbones are key structures that change many details such as the shape of the face, jaw muscle attachments; when they are absent, the "flat face" model created with fabricated pieces is no longer restoration but clearly a custom production.
This fact is expressed in the article as follows:
"After remodeling, small parts of the zygomatic arches and missing central incisors ARE MISSING from the fossil. The zygomatic bone shown in dark brown and the tip of the left maxilla were ADDED AND RECONSTRUCTED by including elements from Yunxian 1. "(The phylogenetic position of the Yunxian cranium elucidates the origin of Homo longi and the Denisovans: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado9202)
As mentioned above, cheekbones are the most critical structures that determine muscle attachments and the relationship of bones to each other, that is, the shape of the face. Without these bones, any kind of "completion" becomes not a scientific restoration but entirely arbitrary modeling. Such an intervention goes beyond assembling the original pieces of the fossil and means PRODUCING A SKULL ACCORDING TO THE DESIRED RESULT, which is exactly what was done in the Yunxian fossils.
IMAGINARY SHAPING AND ADDITIONS
It is difficult to comment on a crushed, fragmented, and warped skull. You can glue bone pieces that stand apart from each other at different angles and distances, taking into account wear and tear. However, this process would be a shaping based entirely on personal desire and interpretation, with no rules whatsoever. Because due to missing pieces, gaps, breaks, and crushes, there are many different combination possibilities in each "assembly," which results in a situation far from scientificity. It is seen that in the reconstruction of these skulls, evolutionists took advantage of this point that was overlooked. In other words, the logic is: "We can place the piece we want at the angle we want, combine it with what we want, and give it a human-like form..."
However, it is clear that the reconstruction of incomplete and deformed fossils loses its scientific result due to countless combination possibilities. The Science article admits between the lines that missing zygomatic bones were added, which shows that the study is assumption-based.
“Since these fossils are fragmented and incomplete, if we do not assemble them in a way that suits our purpose, it will be impossible to convince anyone about the evolutionary connections.”
The sentence above seems to express a "scientific condition," but at the same time, it also confesses the inconsistency in the formation of the fossil. In other words, in the logic of "the fossils are imperfect" and "we need to reshape them," it is admitted that the modeling done may lack consistency, and the result may change depending on assumptions.
On the other hand, considering the confession that missing pieces that were not in the fossil at all were necessarily created later, as we will mention in the following part of our article, the question of how convincing the reconstruction put forward as evidence is clear. Especially when considering that the Chinese state provided 52 billion dollars in funding to individuals and institutions for conducting studies on such topics only in 2024, the possibility that the issue is seen more as an income source than science strengthens.
Additionally, the fact that the claims about the Yunxian 2 fossil are occurring in China, one of the countries where fossil frauds and scientific ethical violations are reported most frequently worldwide, also increases suspicions regarding the "scientific reliability" of the reconstruction done.
The imitations, that is, exact copies, of the Yunxian 1 and 2 skulls seen below are currently exhibited in museums.
In summary, the Science article admits that the reconstruction of Yunxian 2 is assumption-based. Indeed, experts like Andy Herries from La Trobe University and Aylwyn Scally from Cambridge approach the results with skepticism due to the lack of genetic data.
Moreover, this fossil, presented to the world as real without being approved by impartial referee organizations, is not found convincing by other leading evolutionists in the scientific world either.
For example, about this study:
Archaeologist Andy Herries from La Trobe University said he is NOT CONVINCED BY THE RESULTS and that genetic analyses show that the fossil's shape “does not always provide a perfect indicator of human evolution.”
Dr. Aylwyn Scally, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Cambridge, told BBC News that the study's findings are reasonable BUT FAR FROM DEFINITE and that MORE EVIDENCE IS NEEDED TO BE SURE.
"THIS PICTURE IS STILL QUITE UNCLEAR FOR US, so if the results of this research are supported by other analyses, ideally some genetic data, THEN I THINK WE WILL START TO FEEL INCREASINGLY CONFIDENT ABOUT IT," he said.
Experts noted that THE FINDINGS ARE HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE CONTROVERSIAL AND DREW ATTENTION TO UNCERTAINTIES. Michael Petraglia, Director of the Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution at Griffith University, Australia, said that this claim also MUDS the long-standing assumptions about human dispersal from Africa. “…THE JURY IS STILL OUT. I THINK A LOT OF QUESTIONS WILL COME UP," he said. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ancient-skull-could-rewrite-human-evolution-timeline-study/?utm_source
IN SUMMARY: A fossil found 35 years ago, crushed, fragmented, and missing some parts, was reshaped with methods that do not reflect reality; then, based on this artificial shaping, a half-human–half-monkey-looking model was created. Moreover, soft tissues like nose, cheeks, and muscles were added to this model in a completely assumption-based manner; finally, an illustration of this "half-human–half-monkey" type that does not exist in reality was prepared and presented to the public as real, as seen in the stages below.
Common Point Of Evolution Scandals: Why Always Chinese Laboratories?
The answer to this question is quite clear: "High Amounts of Incentives and Funds Given to Studies"
The Chinese government adopts the evolution theory as its official ideology and encourages all evolution-focused researches with billions of dollars in rewards and funds. For example, the budget allocated only in 2024 to so-called scientific researches including the Yunxian fossils is 52 billion dollars.
Accordingly, it is seen that the researcher named Feng Xiaobo and his team, who conducted the study on the Yunxian fossils, were funded by many Chinese official institutions and especially the Chinese State Institution "National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC)" with the grant number "Grant 42588201 (X.N.)" in return for this study and results. (Below, from the Science Magazine Article)
Therefore, "discoveries" supporting the evolution theory in China are seen more as an income source than science. Another reason for this high incentive and funding is the desire to strengthen the evolution thought, which is the foundation of the atheism-materialism ideology adopted by China, within the country. For example, under this policy, the evolution theory is compulsory in school education.
On the other hand, Western evolution advocates see this situation in China as an unmissable opportunity and eagerly adopt and rapidly spread findings that are devoid of truth or controversial in order to keep the evolution theory afloat.
China, being a communist state based on an atheist and materialist ideology (Marxism-Leninism), accepts the evolution theory as an alternative to the belief in creation. For this reason, the evolution theory has been designated as the official ideology in the People's Republic of China, and intensive support is given to works in this field.
In China, the evolution theory is compulsory in the middle school and high school biology curriculum, and evolution is a fundamental part of biology education. The idea of creation has no place in any education curriculum.
Mao's description of Darwin as "a revolutionary like Copernicus," shaping the Communist ideology in this parallel, and all subsequent governments' implementation of these policies as compulsory education have been decisive in the unconditional acceptance of the evolution theory by the 90% segment of the country's population without questioning.
CONCLUSION: Perception Operation Continued Under The Name Of "Science"
In light of this data, the imaginary "transitional fossil" sought for years has, in a sense, been produced in the workshop. Crushed, fragmented, and incomplete skulls were reshaped in a computer environment, non-existent pieces were added, missing places were completed imaginatively, and this was presented to the public as a scientific discovery.
In a study done in the name of science, shaping the available bones arbitrarily is not an honest method. A real evidence is formed by the coming together of different fossil samples, genetic data, and consistent results. If this is done honestly, it is clear that the fossils will disprove evolution, proving that the claim of living beings evolving is nothing but a deception. Therefore, in every new skull finding, with the enthusiasm of having won a great victory, trying to create perception in the public by embellishing the lie of "we found evidence for human evolution" under the name of science cannot go beyond an irrational claim shaped by ideological haste.
Therefore, claims like "we pushed back the evolution history by 400,000 years" carry more the quality of propaganda aimed at directing public perception than a scientific finding.
This situation clearly demonstrates that the discourse of evolution has been shaped more by ideological purposes than by scientific methods and criteria.
As a result, the reconstruction of Yunxian 2, which is based on assumptions, is more an attempt to influence public opinion than a scientific discovery. Such controversial methods further highlight that the theory of evolution relies not on solid scientific foundations, but on an ideological narrative.
