|
|
It
is undeniable that, at least superficially, apes are similar to humans.
Chimpanzees and orang-utans especially have many things in common, such as the
use of sounds and facial expressions to communicate - a little like human
speech, the ability to walk upright - a little like human locomotion, and the
use of their hands to manipulate objects, or tools. Some primates have even
learned how to use a simple form of sign-language, and many examples of
problem-solving have been recorded.
Evolutionists,
who believe that humans are but a branch of the primate family tree, have been
thrilled at some of these similarities between humans and apes because such
similarities seem, to evolutionists, to be ‘proof’ that evolution is
correct. It also appears that humans have more in common with apes than was
first thought. But the question we must ask is : Do similarities prove common
origins? The answer has to be "No".
Some
examples of similarities exists in the mechanical world. There are many
different kinds of vehicle (trucks, cars, trains, skateboards, trailers,
lorries, motorbikes, farm bikes, scooters, bicycles, etc) and they all have
wheels under them, but it would be absurd to suggest that all vehicles come from
only one factory. In the Vegetable kingdom on could look at leaves and list the
hundreds of different types, but nobody would suggest that all the trees in the
world came from one tree which then diversified. In the Animal kingdom we could
use any number of similar examples, such as legs, eyes, body hair, ears,
tongues, and in every case it would be apparent that while two animals might
share the same organ, they would never be considered the offspring of the one
parent. For example, kangaroos, whales, snakes and birds all have tongues, but
each animals is so different from the others that a common origin would be
considered out of the question.
Evolutionists
might here suggest that, given enough Time, anything is possible. In fact the
whole Theory of Evolution demands that, over millions of years, a whale may turn
into a kangaroo, or a snake, or a bird. This, they claim, occurs through two
processes - natural selection and mutations.
Before
we examine the question to which this essay is addressed, we must take a
diversion and look at the proposed methods of evolution, because as long as
there is the possibility that apes might evolve into men, we may not be able to
show that apes and men represent two completely different and unconnected family
trees with no common origin.
Natural
selection.
Evolution
is not something anyone can examine. All evolution, it is claimed, happened in
the past, so there is no way anyone can produce observational facts. Evolution
should be occurring today, but there is no evidence of that, because today’s
science of genetics has established that in order to have any major changes in a
species, new information has to be added to the DNA, and there is no known
mechanism for this to happen.
Evolutionists
cling to the idea that, given enough time, and given enough opportunities,
DNA will accidentally assemble itself. The main way this selection can occur,
they say, is by a thing called natural selection (formerly ‘survival of
the fittest’). From the very first living cells, they say, right through to
today’s highly complex creatures, natural selection is still helping to weed
out the stronger from the weaker. There is no disputing the fact that this
happens. Out of a litter of six, two die because they are small and weak. Out of
a a hundred eggs, ten are eaten because their shells were thinner than the
others. It is an efficient way of ensuring that only the best survive, and
disadvantageous characteristics are not passed on.
But
does natural selection drive evolution? Absolutely not. It is not capable of
creating anything radically new. It cannot produce new information or add
anything to the genetic make-up of the organism. All it does is conserve a
species and helps to prevent deterioration.
The
truth is, genes, DNA and alleles carry only a limited number of possible
variations. A giraffe may have only one maximum length for its neck, and
never any more than that. The sugar beet, selectively bred for centuries to gain
the maximum sugar content, has never gone past a certain percentage. The
Guinness Book of Records has documented many extremes past which no animal of
vegetable will probably never pass because the extreme are also the limits to
which the genetic variety will allow. No amount of ‘natural selection’ will
ever alter the internal genetic blueprint, so acquired characteristics are
absolutely unable to produce a new type of giraffe, let alone a new creature.
The amount of time used is irrelevant. Billions of years would never make the
slightest difference to the genes. Breeders might continue to cross-fertilise
the best sugar beet with the best for a million years, but not a single molecule
of extra sugar will be obtained.
Another
example of this unchangeable rule is : the pigeon. Over the years many
hundreds of different types of pigeon have been artificially bred, and a huge
variety of shapes has been produced, but no new type or species of bird
has ever appeared. Pigeons have remained pigeons, and pigeons have bred only
with pigeons. The gene pool allows for great variety but never any more than
that.
With
dogs it is exactly the same. There are hundreds of breeds, with a wide
variety of sizes, colours, coats and temperaments, but no new species of
dog has ever been produced. All dogs are inter-fertile. The same can be said for
horses, and cats, budgies, cows, and other animals which man has selectively
bred over a long period.
Cross-breeding
of the same species utilises the available gene pool, but it never adds
anything to the genes - that would be the only way a new species could ever
appear. Cross-breeding is an artificial form of natural selection, yet even
under these intensive conditions, no evolution has occurred.
Another
evolutionary belief is that the finches on the Galapagos Islands, (called
Darwin’s finches) demonstrate evolution. There are several types of finch on
these islands, all with specialised beaks and behaviour. These birds, it is
claimed, represent several new lines of finch, each of which will eventually
evolve into a separate species. In other words, given enough time, none of these
finches would eventually be inter-fertile. This assumes that chromosomes and
genes can be altered radically enough, without any direct intervention by Man,
to produce any kind of creature.
But
when Darwin wrote his book, he knew virtually nothing about genetics. Those
finches are simply expressing different alleles, just as pigeons, dogs and cats
do today.
It
used to be theorised, before genetics became a science, that changes could occur
through mutilation. This has also been proved utterly without foundation.
For example, if a dog’s tail is clipped, it does not have puppies with short
tails. Neither does foot-binding produce babies with small feet. Mutilation
affects only the living organism, never the DNA. Obviously mutilation of the
parent makes no difference to the offspring. The mutilation theory came out
before genetic laws of inheritance were discovered.
Mutations.
Another
proposed way for animals to evolve is by mutation, but mutations have
been found to be either disadvantageous to the organism, or deadly. For
example, fruit flies have been bombarded with radiation over successive
generations, in the hope that some ‘lucky mutation’ may occur, producing a
fruit fly with some advantageous mutation. No such event has ever ocurred.
All the fruit flies, (which represents hundreds of generations) have come out
deformed and less viable than their parent to survive in the wild.
One
theory which evolutionists hold is that random damage to the DNA may
produce a new variation of DNA from which may come a new and improved organism.
Ultraviolet light has been put forward as one possible agent for this. But when
we consider how astonishingly complex DNA is, it seems highly unlikely, to say
the least, that a burst of disruptive damage could ever make an improvement. It
would be like shooting an orchestra with a shotgun and expecting the music to go
from amateur to professional. Random damge to something complex seldom does
anything but hinder or destroy its viability - as anyone who has a computer
knows. Even a slight change in the stream of binary data can shut the whole
computation process down.
It
is theorised that, with successive generations, slight changes may occur
in the DNA. These deformities, or breakages, or chance mutations may be
beneficial or harmful to the organism, depending on its circumstances, and the
beneficial changes will be retained. But this theory falls down because
inherited changes, or mutations, are never beneficial - except in artificial
environments, i.e. deformed goldfish, or pugdogs.
The
fossil record shows : 1. No transitional forms, and 2. That plants, animals and
insects are all basically exactly the same today as their fossilised
counterparts. Many creatures in the fossils are larger, such as the dragonfly,
but no substantial difference exists between fossils (supposedly) many millions
of years old, and modern organisms. This shows that DNA has been faithfully
replicating good copies since the first creatures appeared on earth. It also
suggests that the Bible is right when it says that God created life, and
programmed it to produce copies of itself.
If
evolution was true, we would expect to find evidence of both natural selection
and mutation in the fossil record. In Darwin’s day a large number of bones had
already been excavated, but nothing like the millions of specimens available
today. Darwin himself noted that there was nothing in the fossil record to
indicate slow, gradual change of organisms, but he presumed that the evidence
was lacking only because the fossils were so few.
But
many years, and millions of fossils later we are at the same dead-end. Despite
the literally tons of fossils available today, there is still no evidence that
animals, or plants, or insects, changed from one species into another.
Out
of all the millions of fossils now discovered, not a single transitional form
has ever been found. Surely, with all the fossils now available, we would
expect to find just one series, showing how fish grew legs, and/or mammals, or
reptiles grew wings. Surely, out of all the hundreds of tons of bones spread out
in thousands of glass cases and along museum walls we would find something to
show how tyrannosaurus rex and other huge creatures evolved from tiny animals?
But
in the fossil record all the basic kinds of animals and plants appear abruptly
without ancestors. The fossil record represents two things : 1. The sudden
appearance of life, fully complete and viable, and 2. Mass extinction of life
all over the planet.
The
fossil record actually indicates mass extinction of plants, animals, birds and
insects by violent water-action because fossils appear in sedimentary
rock, which is formed by water action and sediments. Some creatures were buried
alive while still eating, or giving birth. Millions of fish were buried and
covered so quickly they had no time to decompose. Huge creatures like the
largest dinosaurs were buried and swept together in heaps before they could
escape. Most fossils are jumbled, torn apart, caught in positions of pain as
they perished. Vast forests were swept into heaps and buried, becoming the huge
coal mines of today. Other mountains of organic matter were piled up and
covered, becoming our oil and gas reserves.
If
apes and humans have no common origin, i.e. a single family tree, then there
must be some other explanation for the appearance of apes and humans. Creation
is the only logical alternative, but if it is accepted, it brings with it many
other things, such as belief in a Creator, accountability to that Creator, and
the possibility of a day of judgement. In short, once Creation is accepted, the
end result is Christianity, because Jesus Christ claimed to be the Creator and
Redeemer of this world and all that is in it.
"All
things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
made". John 1:3
"He
was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him
not". John 1:10
"Wherefore
let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their
souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator". 1 Peter 4:19
But
despite all the science-based evidence that evolution has no reasonable
foundations on which to base its theories, there are still many people who cling
tenaciously to the Theory, so we will examine some of the claims about apes and
Man, and see how they stand up.
The
first claim that is occassionally made is that ‘life’ came from Space.
The theory is that some primitive life, perhaps in the form of bacteria, landed
on earth as it piggy-backed its way on a meteorite or comet.
This
theory has several in-built flaws.
First,
the
heat which objects encounter as they encounter earth’s atmosphere is so
intense that any living cell would be vapourised in seconds.
Second,
even if ‘life’ did come from Space, it could not be anything but what it is,
since evolution is impossible. Natural selection and mutations do not provide
viable mechanisms for new information to be added to DNA, so if bacteria came
from space, that is all it would ever be.
Third,
the theory that ‘life’ might come from space begs the question. Even a
single cell is an absolutely bewildering example of complexity, and it is
impossible for anything this complex to appear fully functional and complete
spontaneously. (It is ironic that, having proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in
the 18th century that life could not spontaneously generate, i.e. Flies
from mud, maggots from meat, mice from fatty rags, geese from barnacles)
today’s ‘modern’ scientists are claiming exactly the same thing!)
Fourth,
even if ‘life’ did come from extra-terrestrial parts, we still have no idea
how that original ‘life’ came into being, or how it launched itself so
successfully across the near-absolute freezing void of Space, nor how it
survived the millions of years of travel, nor how it survived its violent, fiery
crash-landing on earth, nor how it managed to mutate so successfully into so
many life-forms.
The
second claim
is that because apes behave in similar ways to humans, therefore there
must be a biological link between them. Similar behaviour proves similar
origins, right? To see where this kind of faulty reasoning leads to consider the
following :
In
1999 New Zealand’s Parliament considered a bill to give great apes certain
legal rights. Other people are calling for a U.N. Declaration on the Rights of
Great Apes. People in the U.S. are considering a lawsuit on behalf of a chosen
chimpanzee to set a legal precedent.
Though
thoroughly secular, the journal ‘New Scientist’ took a strong stand against
the lawsuit, pointing out that humans and chimps do indeed have a lot of DNA in
common, but they also have a lot of material which is not similar, and humans
have more DNA than apes. Genes, said the journal, are not ‘cake recipes’,
that is, by mixing the same ingredients in different ways you don’t get the
same cake. A few genes different (like ingredients) can make a completely
different creature (cake).
The
journal also cited Ronald Nadler, a psychology professor at Yerkes Primate
Centre, who said that just because the great apes look like us, researchers get
"sucked in" to overemphasising the similarities, and overlooking the
differences, which he says are "substantial". He agreed that chimps
should not be "sitting alone in their cages" but they did this because
they were distressed, and not because they were human. (New Scientist,
Feb.13,1999, p3, 20-21)
But
if apes and humans are close enough to share legal rights, we ought to extend
the principle further. If evolution is true, then all animals ought to
have legal rights. And having included animals, from elephants to snails under a
general Bill of Rights, should we not also include plants? Working from the
simple premise, we are forced, logically,to ridiculous conclusions.
Human
and chimpanzee DNA.
The
idea that humans and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA is worth
consideration. Figures such as 97%, 98% and 99% are quoted, depending on who is
telling the story, but what are we to think about this finding?
We
have already seen that similarity in structure is not proof of common ancestry.
The Porshe and the Volkswagon are both cars, but they come from different
factories. The fact that they are similar in some ways is because of 1. The laws
of Nature, and 2. The designers were all human. The fact that chimps and humans
are similar is because 1. They are part of a whole earthly biosphere, and 2.
They were both designed by the same Creator.
Alternatively,
what if humans and apes were totally dissimilar? This might lead us to think
that there were at least two different Creators. If all animals
were totally different from each other, we might conclude that there were thousands
of Creators. The fact that apes and humans are similar indicates that there is
unity in Creation. The same God created all life using the same materials, but
with different combinations and designs.
We
know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the
development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we
would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. If it was not so,
then the whole idea that DNA carried the information to ‘make’ organisms
would have to be questioned. Because chimpanzees and humans are the most
similar, we would expect their DNA to be similar too.
But
going even further from this point, it is also true that human DNA shares some
similarities with all other DNA in all other living things. For example yeast.
Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, human DNA
shares similarities in the coding for enzyme sequences and proteins.
But
what of the claims about human and chimpanzee DNA being up to 98% similar? Human
DNA has some three billion nucleotides in sequence, but neither the human nor
the chimp DNA has been anywhere near fully sequenced, so it is premature to make
such estimates.
Also,
let us imagine that there is exactly 96% similarity, leaving only 4% difference.
In that 4% we would find 120 million base pairs, or the equivalent of 12 million
words, or 40 large books of information. In just 4% we have a tremendous amount
of additional information, which could represent some hugely significant
differences between humans and chimps.
By
way of illustrating this point further, read the following two sentences and see
if there is any difference between them :
THE
THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FACT-BASED, SCIENTIFIC AND TRUE
THE
THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT-BASED, SCIENTIFIC OR TRUE
What
percentage of these two similar sentences is different? The first sequence of
letters contains 50 letters, while the second sequence contains 52
letters. The percentage difference is therefore very close to 98%, so we would
expect to find that both sentences mean much the same thing? Logically yes, but
in practice, no. When it comes to DNA we have the same problem.
Apes
produce apes.
Because
DNA is the origin of the information for all offspring, it is important to
realise that, unless new information is added to the DNA, it can produce only
what it is designed to produce. This is profoundly important, not only for
Creationists, but also as a barrier to prevent change from one species to
another.
Put
simply, chimpanzees produce only chimpanzees, human produce only humans.
A
chimpanzee may be given fantastic attention from birth, and it may learn a
thousand new skills, but it will not produce offspring with these new abilities.
All its offspring would have to be given the same treatment to get the same
results. Abilities are not inherited. Brillian human parents may give birth to
average children, while the reverse may also happen.
The
Creationist is happy with these science-based facts because they indicate that
God created all the different kinds, or species and from those first parents
have come all the successive generations - all the same as their parents, except
for the variations in size, colour and so on.
Apes
and human language.
One
way in which evoultionists argue human and ape common ancestry, is by pointing
at similar abilities between apes and humans. But here too, the same
inconsistencies exist. The use of language actually argues against evolution far
more strongly than for it.
In
order for humans to use a language, they first need to learn it. Left in
isolation, or in the ‘wild’ humans do not learn to speak a language if they
have no contact with other speakers of a language. (i.e. The ‘wolf boy’ of
India, who was incoherent for years. ‘Tarzan’ was a notable exception, being
able to speak good English almost immediately)
The
fact that humans can speak a language is because they have a portion of their
brain specially designed to operate one. A language requires a vast number of
operations - the words must be processed, analysed, placed in correct
grammatical sequence, shaded with emotion, produced through a highly complex
movement of vocal chords, mouth and tongue. Chimpanzees have no ‘speech
centre’ in their brain, so they could not speak a language even if they were
taught from birth. Chimps and other apes communicate in other ways, but never by
words.
But
the fact that a language has to be learned means that in order for humans
to speak a language, they had to be taught it from infancy by parents who could
already speak a language. This means that, at some point in the past, humans
suddenly acquired the ability to speak a language, which means that it is
reasonable to believe that languages were created.
If
we take the evolutionary view, we have some huge problems. Grunts, squeals and
clicks cannot become sophisticated language, because language must be learned.
All a primitive human, in the evolutionary picture, would pass on is more
grunts, squeals and clicks.
But
further to this, it turns out that there is at least one parrot that can rival
chimps (and dolphins) in creative language and complex reasoning. But birds are
not supposed to be closely related to humans because they have much smaller
brains.
An
African grey parrot called Alex, trined by Irene Pepperberg at the University of
Arizona, according to Irene, "speaks English and means what he says".
Alex can count up to 6, and can recognise and name some 100 objects, including
their shape, texture and colour.(Scientific American, April 1996, page 23)
There
are some claims that chimps and orang-utans can recognise themselves in a
mirror, and are therefore self-aware, but self-recognition is not the same as
the human ability to be self-aware.
Daniel
Povinelli from the University of Southwestern Louisiana, a committed
evolutionist, has, after many years research, come to the (rather grudging)
conclusion that : "chimps may not develop a mental understanding of
themselves and others, at least not to the extent that pre-schoolchildren
do." He says that "Humans operate in a mental realm that may stay
off-limits to apes and other animals . . . By 3-5 years of age, children
conclude that their peers behave according to unseen beliefs, intentions, and
other mental states" while "chimps may not try to decipher other’
minds in this way". (Science news, Vo.149, No.3, Jan.20, 1996, page 42-43.)
In
another study of apes and communication,
some researchers have successfully taught chimpanzees some basic communication
skills using a specially designed keyboard with 400 image-labelled keys linked
to a voice synthesizer. Despite the appearance that the chimps were using
language in the human way, the chimps were merely associating symbols with
needs, such as "I write give grape" and "Please buy me a
hamburger".
Two
problems with this kind of research emerge. One is the evolutionary bias of the
researchers, who jump at anything which looks remotely like evidence for their
theory, and the second is the editing such experiments go through, with
‘unsuitable’ responses being down-played, and ‘good’ responses being
emphasised.
A
note on "yeti" and "Bigfoot".
These
are two sources of stories about man-like monsters which some evolutionists like
to believe because the existence of such creatures seems to support the
evolutionary story of apes changing into men.
The
Yeti, or ‘Abominable Snowman’
(‘Abominable’ means utterly detestible) or yeti by the Tibetans, is said to
inhabit the Himilayan mountains at about snow level. It supposedly walks upright
leaving huge footprints, is covered with coarse black or reddish hair, and has a
face like a gorilla. It first came to the public’s notice in 1921, after
English explorers on Mt. Everest reported seeing huge human-like tracks in the
snow. However, no scientists has ever reported seeing such a creature. Sir
Edmund Hillary believed that the huge footprints were "a small group of fox
or dog tracks melted together by the warmth of the sun" (Merit Students
Encyclopedia, 1:16, 1968)
Another
explanation is "At certain gaits bears place the hindfoot partly over the
imprint of the forefoot, thus making a very large imprint that looks deceptively
like an enormous human footprint positioned in the opposite direction" (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1:35, 1992)
The
Bigfoot.
This is another mythical monster, also called Sasquatch by Indians, which is
believed by some people to inhabit north-western U.S.A and western Canada - a
sort of north-American counterpart to the Yeti. It has been variously described
as "a primate ranging from 6 to 15 feet tall (1.8-4.5m), standing erect on
two feet, often giving off a foul smell, and either moving silently or emotting
a high-pitched cry. Footprints have been measured up to 24 inches (60 cm) in
length and 8 inches (20 cm) across."
A
set of huge footprints was first discovered in 1811 by the British explorer
David Thompson, and since then there have been hundreds of claimed sightings,
and even alleged photographs and filmings, some of which have been proven to be
fake.
None
of the purported evidence has been verified, and most scientists do do recognise
the creature’s existence.
But
even if such a creature was found, it would not be a ‘missing link’ because
it would have DNA, like all other creatures, and therefore it could produce only
copies of itself and nothing else.
Finally,
the most damaging information which strikes at the heart of the ape-human
question, is the New Testament. This book describes the coming of a man called
Jesus Christ, whose birth was fortold hundreds of years before. Not only that
but his upbringing, manners, powers, and lifestyle were also outlined
accurately. Jesus lived like no other man ever lived. He worked miracles before
hundreds of eye-witnesses. He healed the sick of every disease they had, he
restored the limbs of the crippled, and he raised the dead. He lived so
perfectly morally even his enemies could not find any fault with him, but in
anger they pushed him to the cross on the charge that he claimed to be the Son
of God. This means they took his claims seriously, and not as an idiot.
Three
days after the Romans had Jesus crucified, he came back to life and showed
himself to many people over a period of fifty days, teaching, and encouraging
them, then he rose into the sky, promising to return.
If humans are related to apes, who was Jesus, and where does he fit into the Theory of Evolution? He claimed to be the Saviour of sinful humans. He claimed to be the Creator of this world and all life on it. He claimed to be the only way to heaven, the source of truth, and the means whereby people may obtain forgiveness and eternal life. This is the most important question to answer.