Of Monkeys and Men
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
But when
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.