Make your own free website on


Ancient man and natural selection

Home | Evolution disproved | Big Bang theory | Origin of earth | Age of earth | inaccurate dating methods | Life DNA protein and fossils | Ancient man and natural selection


Ancient Man 

rainbow2.gif (1633 bytes)Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything

In the previous chapter (Fossils and Strata), we examined the supposed evidences for the past evolution of plants and animals. In this chapter, we will view the imagined ancestry of human beings.

Following an introduction, this chapter is divided into two main sections: Hominids and Early Man.

The section on Hominids will deal with what is called prehistoric man, or what we might call "the man of evolution." In some respects it is an addition to the chapter on fossils, although it reads more like a sideshow as it tells about fakeries such as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Tuang Man, etc.

The concluding section, Early Man, will be about actual geologic or historical evidences of ancient peoples, and is about the "man of history." It is somewhat paralleled by information near the end of chapter 4, Age of the Earth.

The concept that we are just animals, only slightly removed from apes, means that there are no moral standards, no laws worth obeying, no future, and no hope. The realization of this terrible truth even penetrated the gloom of *Darwin’s mind at times.

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285.


HAVE SUCH BONES BEEN FOUND?—(*#1/28 Man’s Non-human Ancestry Unknown*) From grade school on up, children are taught about "cavemen," and are gradually conditioned to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. They are also taught about the bones and skulls of our "ancestors."

As adults, we frequently hear reports of fossil remains of ape-like humans that have been found. Each discovery has been hailed as a landmark proof of the theory of evolution. Scientists have given a name to these supposed half-man/half-ape remains; they call them hominids..Is it really true that such skeletal remains have been found? Are we really related to apes? In this chapter, you will examine the evidence and find solid answers.

APES—(*#2/28 From Ape to Man*) Evolutionists teach two variant theories regarding man’s direct ancestor: (1) man and ape came from a common ancestor about 5-20 million years ago; (2) man descended from an ape.

Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago—and then he stopped evolving! It is claimed that, since that time, man has switched over from "physical evolution" to "cultural and social evolution." This is an attempt to explain the fact that, in historical records, evolution has never been known among humans.

There is no evidence that evolution is now—or has ever—occurred among animals or plants either. Are they culturally evolving now also? In addition, it is strange that if man is essentially the same as he was a million years ago, then why did he only begin leaving writings, buildings, and artifacts during no more than the last few thousand years? Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years?

"The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more."— *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

Did man descend from the apes? Our DNA is different from that of each of the apes, monkeys, and all the rest. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different from that in the apes. Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different from the great apes.

Orangutans . . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Chimpanzees . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Gorillas . . . . . . . . . 340 -752 cc.

Man . . . . . . . . . . . .1100 -1700 cc.

Cranial capacity is, by itself, an important test of whether a skull is from a man or an ape.

"Since there are variations in tissues and fluids, the cranial capacity is never exactly equal to brain size, but can give an approximation. A skull’s capacity is determined by pouring seeds or buckshot into the large hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum), then emptying the pellets into a measuring jar. The volume is usually given in cubic centimeters (cc.). Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950cc. to 1,800cc., with the average about 1,400cc."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 98.COMPARING GORILLA AND MAN—*Charles Darwin said man was descended from an ape. Shown below is a typical ape, a gorilla. Carefully notice is bony structure. Notice the skulls and neck bones. Both were carefully designed by a highly-intelligent Creator, but both are very different.

Gorilla and Man

EC522.jpg (243595 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGEEvolution teaches that we descended from the great apes, and they, in turn, from the gibbons and other smaller apes.

Several differences between man and ape: (1) Birth weight as a percent of maternal weight is, in man, almost twice that of the great apes (5.5 vs. 2.4-4.1), but about the same or less than that found in monkeys (5-10) and in gibbons (7.5). (2) Order of eruption of teeth is the same in man and in the Old World monkeys, but it is different than that of the great apes. (3) Walking upright is quite different. Man and the gibbon walk habitually upright; the great apes do not. As with the other teachings of evolution, scientific facts are on the side of the creationists, and the evolutionists, and their incredulous theories are outside the domain of scientific fact, discovery, and law. (4) The neck hinge is at the back on man, but at the front on the ape. The shape and arrangement of the teeth, for example, is quite different for apes and man:, for example, is quite different for apes and man:

"Many male primates have large canine teeth, which are used in fighting and defense. Where the upper canines meet, or occlude, with the lower jaw, there are spaces, or gaps, between the opposing teeth. Canine diastemas [spaces opposite large canines] are characteristic of the jaws of baboons, gorillas and monkeys. They are used as a diagnostic feature in studying fossils because they are absent in hominids [men or near-men]. A primate jaw with canine diastemas is considered probably related to apes or monkeys, not close to the human family."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES—Early civilizations were advanced; but, from time to time, groups would migrate to new areas and for a time live in "stone age cultures," until they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal husbandry (*Science Year: 1966, p. 256).THE THEORETICAL ANCESTRY OF MAN—Shown below are side views of the skulls, bottom views of the upper teeth, and side views of the hands—of the supposed ancestral line of mankind (Galago to Guenon, to chimpanzee, to man).

A careful comparison reveals they are each quite different from the others.

The Theoretical Ancestry of Man

EC524.jpg (201584 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

In some localities, the climate and environment have been difficult enough that groups have continued down to the present time in stone-age conditions. Such racial groups can be found in New Guinea and certain other areas.

Some of these peoples have lost a knowledge of agriculture and the making of weapons, tools, or houses. They only have a few crude stone and bamboo tools, and no weapons. They live under the trees in the open, and the men spend each day gathering worms, leaves, and fruit for the family to eat.Many anthropologists believe that those primitive "stone age" peoples are not evidence of earlier human life-forms, but rather tribes which have slipped back from the rest of us.

"Many of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, Central India, South America, and the Western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but instead are the ‘wreckage’ of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life."—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

CAVEMEN—The first introduction many children have to evolution are pictures of dinosaurs and cavemen. It is true that there have been groups that have lived in caves. They wandered from warm climates to colder ones and chose to live in caves for a time before building themselves homes in a new land. But the fact that some people lived in caves for awhile does not prove evolution from one species to another.

*Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones..

Archaeologists tell us that in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves, while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses.

NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals."

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?"

"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically.

*D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens.

The Neanderthals apparently lived at a time when there was not as much sunlight. We know that the ice age came as a result of worldwide volcanic dust pollution. The weather in Europe at that time was cold enough that they may have stayed so much in their caves that they did not obtain enough sunlight, especially due to the overcast sky conditions.

They may also have lived longer than men do today. Biblical records indicate that those living just after the Flood (on down to Abraham and even Moses) had somewhat longer life spans than we do today. In 1973, *H. Israel explained that certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid features—the heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so on—with extreme age. There is definite evidence that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old.

For much more information, see the book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo (1998). In it, he clearly shows that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. He also discovered that the evolutionists had mismatched the upper and lower jaw, in order to make the Neanderthals look like apes.

Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted ("Neanderthal in Armour," in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old ("Living Neanderthal Man," in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).

A third interesting fact is that the Neanderthals had larger craniums than we do. They had larger brains! This indicates regression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent, race rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.

"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

"Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 ccs; Neanderthal’s is 1600 ccs. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man’s."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

"The [Neanderthal] brain case on the average was more than 13 percent larger than that of the average of modern man."—Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

They also had well-developed culture, art, and religion. At the present time, most scientists agree that Neanderthals were just plain people that lived in caves for a time. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this change in thinking to be seen in children’s textbooks.

Two Neanderthal-like skulls were found in Santa Barbara, California in 1923. Researchers recognized that they were just Indian skulls.

Neanderthals were just racial types similar to ourselves.

CRO-MAGNON MAN—(*#4/4 Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man*) In 1868 a cave was discovered at Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne area of France. In the local dialect, cro-magnon means "big hole." A number of skeletons have been found there, and have been hailed as the great "missing link" between man and ape.

The Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of a noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of a transition from ape to man.. 


BASIC QUESTIONS—We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As we view them, one by one, there are a few questions we should keep in mind:

(1) Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not hundreds or thousands of them? If these are our ancestors, there should be millions of specimens. There are so many people alive today, there should have been large numbers of half-ape people alive during that "million years" that men are said to have lived on this planet. Indeed, evolution teaches uniformitarianism, the concept that past climates and living conditions were essentially like those we have now in the world.

(2) Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen—never a complete skeleton? Is this not reading a lot into almost no evidence? Or is it possible that the less found, the easier it is to try to make unfounded claims for it? (Later in this chapter we learn that if only parts of bones are found, their positions can be moved about to imitate half-ape skulls and jaws.)

(3) Although bones decay in a few years in damper regions, and in a few centuries in drier regions,—why is it that these special bones did not decay even though they are supposed to be "a million years old"? The very possibility, that these "million-year-old bones" are not supposed to have decayed, makes it all the more certain that there ought to be millions of other bones lying around belonging to our ancestors! There are millions living today, if people have lived on earth for a million years,—the earth should be filled with the bones of our ancestors!

(4) How could "million-year-old bones" possibly be found in damp earth (not encased within solid rock) in Indonesia, China, and England? Yet the evolutionists claim that such bones have been found, as we shall learn below.

In an article about the grand opening of the International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory (TILLMIAP) in Nairobi, Kenya, *Lewin wrote this:

"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents."—*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

ONLY BONE PIECES—One problem, as indicated above, is all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. But, working with pieces collected here and there, imagination can produce most wonderful "discoveries." In some instances, some of the pieces have been found at some distance from the rest of the fragments.

JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.

In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old.Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape. 

Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as "Java Man," and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the "half-human half-ape" bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.

Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his "bone collection" nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.

Java Man

EC532.jpg (184546 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGEARRANGING JAVA MAN—This sketch is an excellent illustration of how evolutionists prefer PIECES of bones, for they can fit them together in different ways to achieve their purposes.

About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human,—*Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon!

School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of "Java Man," which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure.

PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.

Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.

In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax. (Later in this chapter, the story is discussed in more detail.)

Piltdown Man

EC534.jpg (182547 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGETHE PIECES OF PILTDOWN MAN—It took several years to fabricate Piltdown Man. *Dawson and his associates carefully worked on the bones, in order to only provide certain pieces, so a half-ape, half-human appearance could be produced. The dark portions represent the pieces of bone; the white portions are plaster "reconstructions."

This illustration, like all in this book, are taken from the author’s three-volume Evolution Disproved Series.

"Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

RHODESIAN MAN—In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape, half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being.

Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all.

TAUNG AFRICAN MAN—Taung African Man was found in 1924 by *Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the "the missing link." Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape.

"Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called "Nebraska Man"! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to "an extinct pig"! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing "Nebraska Man" was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.

*Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was "the herald of anthropoid apes in America," and that it "speaks volumes of truth" (*H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103).  

At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after careful study, the tooth was definitely from a species closer to man than to the ape. (Science 55, May 5, 1927, p. 464).

PEKING MAN—Peking Man emerged on the international scene in the 1920s. The finances of *Davidson Black were just about running out, and he needed help, when in 1927 he found a tooth near Peking, China. The *Rockefeller Foundation stepped forward and gave him $80,000 to continue research on this colossal find. So *Black continued looking and came up with a skull, copies of which are displayed today in biology laboratories. *Black named it Sinanthropus pekinensis ("China man from Peking"), and received honors from all over the world for his discovery. After his death in 1934, the Jesuit that helped prepare Piltdown Man (*Teilhard de Chardin) took over the work at the site. Then *Franz Weidenreich led out until all work stopped in 1936, because of the Japanese invasion of China.This turned out to be some kind of town garbage dump. Although thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, only a few human skulls were found, and there was no evidence that they had evolved from anything else—even though there was 150 feet of animal bones in the pit. These human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires.These were human bones, but with a somewhat smaller brain capacity (1,000cc., which some people today have), and with the prominent brow ridges which we find in Neanderthals and Australopithecus. There are races today with larger brow ridges, and some Philippine women have brow ridges,—which only men generally have. Patterns vary, but the species remains one.

"The heavy-boned [Peking] hominid skull featured prominent brow ridges and a somewhat smaller braincase (about 1,000 cc.) than modern humans (1,500 cc.)."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

A braincase of 1,000cc. is not sub-human; people today vary between 1,000 and 2,000cc., with an occasional low of 750cc., and an average of 1,500-1 ,600cc.All the skulls disappeared during World War II, so we cannot now examine them with modern methods to check their genuineness.


EC538.jpg (191027 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

"Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom.

"However, there have been sporadic reports that the crate never made it onto that ill-fated ship, but was left behind in a railway station, where it was confiscated by the Japanese, stolen by looters or simply lost in the confusion."—*Ibid.

The evidence indicates that this may have been a dining area or garbage dump, and that both animals and people had been eaten.

"But just what had been excavated? A living site? A burial ground? A place of ritual cannibalism? . . Peking man was represented mainly by skulls—hardly any postcranial material. Not a pelvis or a rib. Just skulls. And the openings at their bases, the foramens magnums, had been widened and smashed, as if someone had wanted to scoop out the brains."—*Ibid.

Twenty years later, in the 1950s, *Ernst Mayr came up with a new name, Homo erectus, and then put a variety of bone finds (Java Man, Peking Man, and several others) into it.

It is well to keep in mind that all that remains of Peking Man are plaster casts in the United States. But plaster casts cannot be considered reliable evidence.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES—(*#8/3 Ramapithecus*; #9/17 Australopithecus*) "Australopithecus" ("southern ape") is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones carefully, anthropologists have gravely announced that they come from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 4 to 1 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. But they are all apes.

One of the most famous was named "Lucy," and will be mentioned later on.

Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the "Ramapithecines" ("Ramapithecus" is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis]."—W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He dated them at 1.8 million years ago and decided they belonged to the human family, therefore naming them Homo (people are classified as Homo Sapien. But many experts, including *Brace and *Metress have clearly shown that habilis was nothing more than a large-brained Australopithecus.

Brain sizes: Human beings have a brain size of about 1500 cc. (cubic centimeters). In contrast, habilis was 660 cc. Other brain sizes would be 800 cc. for Hadar, 900 cc. for Koobi Fora. Most other brain sizes are about 500 cc. The Taung and Sterkfontein skulls are around 430 cc. apiece, so an adult of their species would only be 550-600 cc. Thus on the score of size of brain case, these finds prove nothing.An excellent and detailed article on this, which includes 13 charts and graphs, will be found in "Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens," by Gerald Duffert (Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 96-104). The article reveals that there was evidence of fraudulent measurements of those ancient African skulls. Repeatedly, when initially measured a high cubic centimeter volume was announced for the skull, but later remeasurements by other investigators disclosed much smaller measurements!

"Overall, the revisionary calculations of australopithecine skulls have led to reductions of their calculated volumes. The total percentage differences amount to—157.91."—*Op. cit., p. 100.

"The hypothesis that brain enlargement marked the beginning of man was long popular, but went out of fashion with the discovery that the endocranial volumes of the australopithecine group were not larger than those of gorillas."—*Elwin L. Simons, Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man’s Place in Nature (1972), p. 278.

Speaking of the Australopithecines, *J.S. Weiner commented:

"The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man."—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

In 1957, *Ashley Montagu, a leading U.S. anthropologist, wrote that these extremely apelike creatures could not possibly have anything to do with man (*A. Montegu, Man’s First Million Years).

After the most careful research, *Oxnard and *Zuckerman have come to the conclusion that Australopithecus is an ape, and not human, and not a transition between the two.

"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as ‘Lucy.’ "—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY—Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man" (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like" (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).

*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.

In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are "unmistakable" (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys" (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).

Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:

"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an apeSo whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.

*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:

"Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.

*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.

"Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species."—*Ibid.

Mehlert sums it up.

"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

NUTCRACKER MAN—Nutcracker Man was found in 1959 by *Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, and is one of the Australopithecines, discussed above.

SKULL 1470—In 1972, *Richard Leakey announced what he thought to be a human-like fossil skull, and gave it an astonishing date of 2.8 million years. The official name of this find is KNM-ER 1470, but it is commonly known as "Skull 1470." If this is a human skull, then it would pre-date all the man/ape bones said to be its ancestors.

Both Leakey and other hominid experts think it looks essentially like a modern small-brained person. It was pieced together from several fragments.

"In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, of Richard Leakey’s ‘Hominid Gang,’ found a similar but much more complete skull at East Turkana. It is generally known as the ‘1470’ skull, from its accession number at the Kenya National Museum.

"The 1470 skull was pieced together by Richard Leakey’s wife Meave and several anatomists from dozens of fragments—a jig jaw puzzle that took six weeks to assemble. Dated at 1.89 million years old, with a cranial capacity of 750cc., Leakey believes it is the oldest fossil of a true human ancestor. In his view, the australopithecines and other hominid fossils were sidebranches

"Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply ‘too modern-looking’ to be as ancient as he at first claimed."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

Here was *Leakey’s original announcement in regard to this skull:

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470," National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

But it should be understood that modern, living, small-brained (750cc.) human beings have existed, so the finding of a 750cc. Skull 1470 is no reason to think it is an "ancestor" of mankind.

"Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed ‘Keith’s rubicon’ (dividing line) . . How did he arrive at the ‘magic’ number of 750cc.? It was the smallest functioning modern human brain anatomists had seen at the time [when *Sir Arthur Keith, one of those involved in the Piltdown hoax, was alive earlier in this century]."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

Early comments on Skull 1470 included these:

"The finding of ‘Skull 1470,’ which Richard Leakey says is nearly three million years old and really human, will shatter the whole evolutionary story built upon so-called hominoids, if anthropologists accept Leakey’s pronouncements. An artist for the National Geographic Magazine obligingly painted a reconstruction which is very human indeed. The only thing peculiar is the overly flat nose—and the shape of the nose cannot be ascertained from a skull."—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 131.

"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man’s origins."—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

After considering the implications of the situation, the skull was carefully redated, lest it be thought that human beings had lived 2.8 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors!

"The 1470 Skull discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972 was originally ‘dated’ at 2.6 million years. However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was ‘redated’ until a more ‘acceptable’ estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted."—John N. Moore, "Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.

This skull may have been that of a microcephalic human, a teenage human, or an ape..

It lacks the prominent eyebrow ridges common to Homo erectus (Java Man, etc.), many Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. Some fossil apes had brow ridges; others lacked them. The brow ridge slopes back abruptly as does that of simians (apes), but it is somewhat more rounded.

The size of the braincase is equivalent to that of a teenager, or a microcephalic, and somewhat larger than an ape: 775 cc. A gorilla averages 500 cc., and an australopithecus only 422 to 530 cc. The average brain size for modern man is 1450 cc. But there are exceptions to this:Microcephalics are human beings which have brains as small as 775 cc. This condition is a birth defect which, though unfortunate, occurs from time to time. 

"Humans with microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns."—Marvin Lubenow, "Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny," in Bible-Science Newsletter, 14(1 1):1-4 (1976).

"None of these early hominids had brains approaching the size of modern human ones. The indices of encephalization show that australopithecines were only slightly above the great apes in relative brain size and even the largest cranium [Skull 1470] is about as close to apes as it is to humans."—*Henry M. McHenry, "Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution," in Science 190(4213):425-431.

It is significant that the lower jaw was not found. This would have told a lot. The face of the skull, below the eyes, protrudes forward in the manner of apes. The jaw and molars are somewhat larger than the average modern human’s, but not larger than those of some people. There appears to be a lack of bony support beneath the nostrils, such as is found in gorillas. Facial skeletons are relatively larger in apes than the braincase size. Skull 1470 is about midway in this category, and thus not like that of humans. It also has a long upper lip area, such as apes have.

Viewing three skulls from the rear (an adult human, Skull 1470, and Australopithecus) we find that Skull 1470 has similarities to that of Australopithecus.

John Cuozzo, in a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs (Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176), provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the ape-like characteristics in the nasal opening, etc.

Frankly, there is not enough data available to say much more. There is no doubt that the special human qualities of speech, etc., would not reveal themselves in a skull.

It is also a fact that evolutionists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from an ape-like ancestor. Yet over a hundred years of searching has not disclosed this, even though, as we learned in the chapter on Fossils and Strata, millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground and examined. If mankind had indeed descended from another creature, there should be abundant fossil evidence. But it is not there.

BONE INVENTORY—(*#12 Major Hominid Discoveries*) Most all of these supposed ancestral bones of man have been catalogued in a *Time-Life book, The Missing Link, Volume 2 in the "Emergence of Man Series," published in 1972. It has a complete listing of all the Australopithecine finds up to the end of 1971.

Although over 1400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. All that anthropologists have in their ancestral closet are bits and pieces.

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.

As listed in the Ancient Man appendix on our website (*#12*), the number of bone pieces which have been found worldwide is incredibly small! You will want to turn to the appendix and look over the listing for yourself. There is little wonder that each new piece of bone receives so many newspaper stories!

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . The collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present."—*John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

"I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments."—*Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."—*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

WHAT IT ALL MEANS—All the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one report: Mankind did not evolve from any lower form of life. Evolutionists have found no support anywhere for their theory that man came from apes, monkeys, mollusks, germs, or anything else.Here are five special reasons why mankind did not descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters: 

"1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

Anthropologists maintain that man descended from an unknown ancestor, and *Darwin said it was an ape. If we descended from an ape, why do we have a different number of vertebrae in our backbones than apes have? Why is our cranial capacity totally different? And, most important, why is our DNA distinctly different than apes, monkeys, and all species of wildlife?

They say that they have found the bones of our hominid ancestors. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones, if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both?

They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart’s Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black’s Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth, and Peking Man was just human bones.
And are not very old after all.

You have just completed

 Ancient Man


Natural Selection 


A fundamental teaching of evolution is that every living thing in our world—whether it be a plant, animal, or bird,—evolved from other creatures, which ultimately originated from dust, rock, and water.

According to Darwinian evolutionists, this ‘evolving’ was accomplished by "natural selection." *Charles Darwin said that natural selection was the primary way that everything changed itself from lower life-forms, and new species were produced.

In the years that have passed since Charles Darwin, this theory of "natural selection" has continued as a mainstay of evolutionary theory.

In this chapter we will carefully consider natural selection, what it can do and what it cannot do. This is an important chapter; for, along with fossil evidence  and mutations , natural selection ranks at the top in the esteem of committed evolutionists. Disprove the validity of these three, and the whole theory falls apart.STILL DEFENDED BY SOME—(*#1/6 Evolutionists Defend Natural Selection*) It is a remarkable fact that some evolutionists still defend their natural selection theory. But we will discover why so many have abandoned it.THE BASIC TEACHING—When a plant or animal produces offspring, variations appear. Some of the offspring will be different than other offspring. Some evolutionists (Darwinian evolutionists, also called "Darwinists") declare that it is these variations—alone—which have caused all life-forms on our planet: pine trees, jackals, clams, zebras, frogs, grass, horses.

"So far as we know . . natural selection . . is the only effective agency of evolution."—*Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 36.

"Natural selection allows the successes, but ‘rubs out’ the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual."—*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.

In this chapter, we will learn that this statement is wishful thinking in the extreme, with no scientific support in its favor. On the face of it, the statement is false merely from the fact that evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. If even half of the random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging. But *Ruse views all changes as being selectively positive. In addition he ignores other scientific facts, such as the powerful one that the closest thing to natural selection (gene reshuffling) never goes across the species barrier to produce a new species.

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process was said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next was accepted. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. Their theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is ‘opportunistic,’ in the word of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. It does not know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular direction."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.

How can total randomness select only that which is better, and move only in advantageous directions? Random occurrences never work that way. Yet in the never-never land of evolutionary theory, they are said to do so.NEO-DARWINISM—(*#2/38 Scientists Speak about Natural Selection*) Earlier in this century, a large number of evolutionists rebelled against this theory, saying that natural selection has never given evidence of being able to change one species into another—and is not able to do it. They recognized that so-called "natural selection" (actually random changes within the true species) cannot produce cross-species change. These "neo-Darwinists" decided that it is mutations that accomplish the changes, and that natural selection only provided the finishing touches.

In this chapter we will discuss natural selection; and, in the next, mutations. When you have completed both chapters, you will have a fairly good understanding of the subject.

Keep in mind that, although evolutionists offer many theories and evidences, they admit that the only mechanisms by which evolution can occur is natural selection and mutations. There are no others! It matters not how many dinosaur bones, ape skulls, and embryos are displayed in museums, if natural selection and/or mutations cannot produce evolutionary change, then evolution cannot occur. It is as simple as that.DEFINITION OF TERMS—(*#3/5 Natural Selection is a Useless Concept*) Here are some basic definitions that are needed at this point:

1 - A plant or animal evolves by natural selection when those processes enable it to cross the species barrier, and produce a new—a different—species. But keep in mind that changes within a species are not evolution.

2 - Species: In these studies, we will generally refer to the word "species" as the fundamental type, but there are instances in which such a basic type (the "Genesis kind," see Genesis 1:12, 21, 25) might refer to genus instead of species. Plant and animal classifications have been made by men and errors in labeling can and do occur. There are about three dozen different breeds of domesticated house cats, and a few taxonomists would list most of them as different species. But it is generally recognized that they all are in the cat family, Felidae, the genus Fells, and the single species F. catus (some authorities call that species F. domesticus). In general, all life-forms within a true species can interbreed.

There are over a hundred different breeds of dogs, yet biologists uniformly recognize that they are all in the same species.

Yet there are exceptions even to that. In some instances, variant forms within an otherwise almost identical species type will not interbreed, and are then classified as sub-species.3 - Variations: Variations in the offspring of a creature can occur by Mendelian genetics, that is by simple rearrangements or assortments of the existing DNA molecules within genes. This is what neo-Darwinian evolutionists refer to as "natural selection." All variations always occur within basic types (species); they never go across those types—and produce new types or species. Therefore no evolution occurs. Producing new breeds or varieties is not evolution, because the species did not change.

Some species have a broad gene pool, and are thus able to produce many varieties or breeds (such as dogs and chrysanthemums). Others have a small one (cheetahs have an extremely small one). Changes in color, bill length or shape, etc., can occur within a true species because it has a large gene pool. But the flower, bird, etc. does not change into a new species.4 - Mutational changes: Occasionally changes in offspring occur because of a mutational defect. Such alterations always weaken the individual that has them. A mutational change is not a normal variational reshuffling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the code information. The result is that the perfection of the code has been damaged. The resultant offspring are weaker and they are more likely to die off.

5 - Survival of the fittest: Organisms damaged by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. "Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another.

First we will consider examples put forward by evolutionists as evidences of evolution by natural selection (1 - It Does Not Occur). Then we will turn our attention to the reasons why natural selection cannot produce evolution (2 - Why it Cannot Occur).1 - IT DOES NOT OCCUR

Species evolution never occurs by means of natural selection. Evolutionists have ransacked the plant and animal kingdoms for examples of cross-species evolution (by any means, natural selection or otherwise!), and have been unable to find them. What they have found are some interesting examples of variations WITHIN species. These they present to the public and in schoolbooks as "evidences" of evolution.


We will briefly examine several of these evidences.

1 - PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary "proof" of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really have no proof, and the peppered moth surely is not one.

"This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man."—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.

Noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow said:

"Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth."—*Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

In his large 940-page book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.

"One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin’s native land. In England, it seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a dark."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.

Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moth was primarily light-colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.

By the 1880s in the Manchester, England area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.

By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.

Evolutionists point to this as a "proof of evolution," but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a species is not evolution.

There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.

There can be light peppered moths and dark peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species that includes them both is Biston betularla. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.

When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:

"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia."—*Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.

Let us consider this matter a little more deeply:

Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years, while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary "proof!"

For nearly a century, the birds ate the lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker ones are more frequently eaten.

This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.

"This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with peppered moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."—On CalI, July 2, 1973, p. 9.

In reality, the peppered moth did not change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendelian recessive, and both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is change across species.

Two leading British evolutionary scientists, said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:

"We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.

*Grene adds this:

"The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as KettlewelI has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but ‘evolution’? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?"—Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism, "Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.

There is a postscript to the peppered moth story. The above description included data about the habits of peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And the stock evolutionary "research photos" were made of dead moths pasted on the sides of trees!2 - RESISTANT FLIES AND BACTERIA—Another example of what evolutionists declare to be evolutionary change by "natural selection," is the fact that certain flies have become resistant to DDT, and some bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics. But here again, the flies are still flies, and those bacteria are still bacteria; no species change occurred. In reality, there were various strains of flies and bacteria, and as certain ones were reduced by DDT, other resistant strains reproduced more and became a majority. When DDT is stopped, after a while the various strains bounce back. (Additional information on "immune" flies and bacteria in chapter 10, Mutations.)3 - PIGEONS—Pigeon breeding first became popular in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century. Pigeons can be bred to produce the most astonishing variety of shapes and colors. There are dark pigeons, light pigeons, pigeons, that twirl as they fly, and pigeons that have such showy wings they no longer can fly. But they are all pigeons.

Since *Darwin did not bring any live Galapagos finches home with him, he decided to work with pigeons instead. He joined two pigeon clubs, learned how to breed pigeons and then set to work. Studying them on the outside and inside as well, Darwin learned that, although there are seven basic varieties of pigeons, all the pigeons breed with one another. All were pigeons and sub-species of one basic species type: the rock dove. Darwin was not able to get his pigeons to become some other kind of species, although he tried very hard to do so.

If, after years of effort, *Charles Darwin with his evolutionary brilliance could not change a pigeon into something else, why should he imagine that the pigeon could do it by itself?

Not only was the barrier of fixity of species there, but Darwin sadly discovered that, if left to themselves, all the pigeon varieties gradually returned toward the original pigeon: the bluish rock pigeon (Columba livia). And that, itself, tells us a lot.CHANGES BACK AND FORTH—Evolutionists strictly maintain, as part of their creed, that the evolutionary process is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when one creature has evolved into another,—the new creature cannot evolve back into what it used to be!

Now that has serious implications for our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as their only actual evidence of evolution. Yet these are all changes back and forth. This includes changes from white to dark peppered moths—and back again, changes from one pigeon shape and color to another and back again to the basic rock pigeon type, and changes back and forth in bacteria. All these are supposed to prove evolution. But in each of these instances, we only have changes within a species,—and we have changes back and forth within that species.4 - GRAPES AND APPLES—An article in *World Book Encyclopedia cites the 1849 discovery of the Concord variety of grape as an example of evolution. Then it gives four other examples:

"Other sports . . as such variations are called, have produced hornless cattle, short-legged sheep, "double" flowers, and new varieties of seeds."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1972 edition), Vol. 6, p. 332.

Obviously, all the above examples are only variations within species; none go across species. They are not caused by mutations. All of your children will look like you, but each will vary in appearance from one another. That is variation within species, not evolution across species. It is a reassortment of the DNA and genes, but nothing more.

In the 1920s, a man in Clay County, West Virginia discovered an apple tree in his back yard with apples that tasted fantastic. He sent one to Stark Brothers Nursery,—and the Golden Delicious was the result. Every Golden Delicious apple tree in the world originated from seeds from that West Virginia tree.

Neither the Concord grape, nor the Golden Delicious apple was a mutation. Both were the result of naturally reshuffled genes. Both were "natural selection" at its best, which is always, only, variation within species. If they had been the result of mutations, the result would have been weakened stock whose offspring would tend eventually to become sterile or die out.5 - GALAPAGOS FINCHES—During *Charles Darwin’s five-year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited the Galapagos, a group of islands in the Pacific more than 600 miles [965 km] from the mainland of South America. He found several different finches (Geospizinae) on the Galapagos Islands. Although they all looked nearly alike, they had developed a number of different habits, diet, and little crossbreeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches occurred. Yet these Galapagos finches were all still finches. When Darwin arrived back in England, a friend urged him that this was very significant. So Darwin, knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were all different types—and evolution across types had indeed occurred.

If you will personally examine all the Galapagos Island finches (often called Darwin finches), you will find that they do indeed look just about alike. They are sub-species of a single parent species that, at some earlier time, reached the island from South America. (If hummingbirds can fly across the Gulf of Mexico, finches ought to be able to be borne by storms to the Galapagos Islands.) An excellent collection of all 14 of these finches is in the California Academy of Science in San Francisco. One scientist, Walter Lammerts, who carefully examined this collection, described their similar appearance (Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island Finches," in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 355, 360-361).

When he wrote his book, Origin of the Species, *Charles Darwin gave many examples of variation within species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species. All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types. In his ignorance Darwin wrote down his theory; and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abandon it.

Scientists acknowledge that all dogs descended from a common ancestor, and all are dogs. Yet there are far greater differences among dogs than there are among Darwin finches or than most other sub-species in the world. All biologists classify dogs as being in the same species.

Many other examples of variation within species could be cited. In south central Africa the Pygmy and Masai tribes live not far from each other. One is the shortest group of people in existence today; the other the tallest. Both are human beings; only the height is different.

Pigeon fanciers tell us there are more color variations among pigeons than among any other animal or bird in the world. That is the result of only a couple centuries of intensive breeding by fanciers in Europe and America. In spite of the variations, they can all interbreed and are just pigeons.

Within 14 years after writing Origin of the Species, *Darwin confessed to a friend:

"In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and theorizing] . . When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."—*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life & Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.LAMARCKISM—(*#5/7 The Error of Lamarckism*) An important 19th-century error was the theory of *Jean Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829), later called "Lamarckism." It is the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, and was solidly disproved by *August Weismann in 1891, when he cut the tails off of 19 successive generations of rats—and they and their offspring continued to grow tails! Later still, when the inheritance of characteristics was found to depend on the DNA genetic coding and not habits or environmental circumstances, the reason why Lamarckism could not work was then understood.

Lamarckism teaches that one animal grew an organ for some reason—or no reason at all,—and then passed that organ on to the next generation, which was stuck with it.

Here are several additional examples of acquired traits, which were never passed on to offspring: (1) Hebrews circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been born automatically circumcised as a result. (2) Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of Chinese women today are normal in size. (3) The Flat-head Indians of Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.

Within each species there is a range of possible changes that can be made through gene shuffling, within the gene pool of that species. That is why no two people look exactly alike. But this variational range cannot cross the species barrier. The DNA code forbids it.

Here is a very important fact, which evolutionists do not want you to know: In a later book (Descent of Man, 1871), *Darwin repudiated natural selection as hopeless, and returned to Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as the cause of evolution.—The one who gave us so-called "natural selection" as a means of evolution, later gave up on it as a way to produce evolution!INSTINCT—Before concluding this section, mention should be made of the word, "instinct." This is a most wonderful word for explaining away facts which are uncomfortable. The astounding migration of birds, and the amazing flight paths they take—is explained away by calling it merely "instinct." The mental abilities of tiny creatures, which involve definite decision-making processes, is shrugged off as "instinct." That only pushes back into the past something evolutionists do not want to confront today. We will not take the space to discuss this further, but think about all the wonders in nature which are dismissed as merely "instinct."2 - WHY IT CANNOT OCCUR

NEVER ACROSS TYPES—Plant scientists have bred unusual varieties of roses, corn, chrysanthemums, etc., but never do any of their experiments go across basic types. As we study wildlife, we find the same thing: Never does one basic species change into another species.

Neither plants nor animals produce new types, nor is man able to apply special breeding techniques and produce from them something that crosses the species barrier. It just cannot be done.

Modern molecular biology with its many discoveries of DNA has added immense confirmation to the great law of heredity. Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.HORSE AND MULE—Consider the horse. There are many types of horses: large horses, fast horses, work horses, miniature horses,—but each one is obviously a horse. Well, then, what about the mule? A mule is a cross between two species, the horse and the donkey. In a few instances such crosses between two species can occur. But it is a cross, not a crossover. The horse can reproduce more horses, the donkey can reproduce more donkeys. But when a female horse and a male donkey crossbreed, the mule that is produced is usually sterile. But in those rare instances in which a female mule does have offspring, they revert back toward the horse or donkey species. A horse and a donkey are very close to the same species, and it is only for that reason that they can crossbreed and produce a normally barren mule.There are several instances in which similar species are crossbred:

"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.

DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed.

There is no evidence that at any time, in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed from other species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic new changes would have had to occur thousands and thousands of times. More on this in the chapter on Fossils and Strata.

FIVE TYPES OF EYES—Each of these eyes are totally different than the others, and evolutionists say each evolved separately. The Compound Eye is most commonly found in insects and provides maximum visibility in such a tiny creature. The Scallop Eye of bivalve mollusks is many eyes on the edges of the clam shells. Light hits a mirror-coated back which reflects it onto a concave retina, next to the lens. The Macruran Eye is one of three different types of compound eyes. Hundreds of mirror-lined tubes reflect the light onto a central area. The Octopus Eye is similar to the Human Eye, but instead of changing the shape of the lens, it changes the distance between the lens and the retina. The Human Eye, of course, is also quite complicated.







THE HUMAN EYEEC300.jpg (559522 bytes)  EC300b.jpg (441412 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE AMAZING EYE—(*#6/39 Those Marvelous Eyes*; cf. #7/21 and #10*) Men presume a lot when they declare that evolution occurred. Not only new species would have had to invent themselves, but also the organs within those different species!

For a moment, think of what is involved in the eye. This is a very remarkable structure, yet evolution teaches that the eye slowly developed over millions of years,—and that this miracle of random production of a complete eye occurred at least three times: in the squid, the vertebrates (animals with backbones), and the arthropods (insects).

"Consider the eye ‘with all its inimitable contrivances,’ as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse . . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 215.

*Charles Darwin had a difficult time trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in his books that it appeared impossible. He said that just to think about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection was enough to make him ill. He also said this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190.

"The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 98.

Then there is the wing. Evolutionists tell us that the wing evolved four separate times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. And each time, they maintain, it was an unplanned, random accident.SYNTROPY—In order for a creature to live, eat, survive, and reproduce, it must be perfect. It cannot have only part of its structure, but must have all of it. And that structure must be totally complete. Of the millions of DNA codes within its cells, essentially all must be there in perfect lettering and sequence in order for it to live and function. This coding requirement is called syntropy, and it stands as another barrier to evolution across basic species.

Natural selection within a species may work fine,—but you have to have the traits to begin with! These traits may adapt (and adapting traits to new situations is not evolution), but the traits had to be there to start with.

"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted . . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation."—*Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.

Although it occurs all the time within species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or traits, but only their preservation and more careful use.

*Lewontin is a confirmed evolutionist, but he recognizes that natural selection could not possibly produce evolution:

" ‘Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it.’ ‘Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.’ "—*Ibid.

You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.SUBSPECIES—Evolutionists reply by saying that there are instances in which a species has divided into two separate species. For example, they tell us of islands in the ocean where certain flies stopped breeding together—and thus became two separate species.

Such flies have not become separate species, but subspecies. Yet producing new subspecies is not evolution. Evolution requires going across the species line, not developing variations within it, such as an earlier-producing tomato or a higher-yield corn. The tomatoes are still tomatoes, the corn is still corn, and the flies are still flies.

Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene pool of a species. A reassortment of what is already there is not evolution. If two fly colonies no longer interbreed, each one has become more limited in its gene pool, and more restricted in its ability to manage its environment. The long-term result might be extinction.

The test of evolution is a practical one: The evolutionary scientists need to show us one species that is changing into another. But, because of the DNA code barrier, this cannot be done and never will be done.NATURAL SELECTION ELIMINATES EVOLUTION—*C. H. Waddington explains that the processes of natural selection work exactly opposite to those of theorized evolution. In fact, natural selection would destroy evolutionary crossovers if they could occur! A plant or animal can be selectively bred for greater beauty, etc.; but in so doing, it has become less hardy than the wild, natural original. Variations are never quite as hardy as the original.

"If by selection we concentrate the genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a sub-population which differs from the original one by greater development of some character we are interested in (such as higher milk yield on production of eggs), we almost invariably find that the sub-population has simultaneously become less fit and would be eliminated by natural selection."—*C. H. Waddington, "The Resistance to Evolutionary Change," in Nature, 175 (1955) p. 51.THERE SHOULD BE NO DISTINCT SPECIES—A confirmed evolutionist has uncovered a powerful objection to evolution. *Gould, writing in the respected journal, Natural History, said this:

"How could the existence of a distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?"—*Stephen Jay Gould, in Natural History, August-September, 1979.

What Gould is saying is that, if all life is constantly changing (evolving) as evolutionists tell us, —then why are there any distinct species at all? This is a very important point. *Darwin also recognized this problem, but he finally tried to solve it—by denying that species existed! Yet such a solution is merely to bury one’s head in the sand to avoid the evidence. Distinct species are there, all about us; no doubt about that.NON-RESHUFFLEABLE SPECIES—Interestingly enough, there are species that cannot reshuffle genes enough to produce subspecies variations. How can evolutionary theory explain this?

One of these is the dandelion. Its seeds grow without being pollinated, since the pollination factor is entirely sterile! Yet the lowly dandelion does just fine, without any gene reshuffling, generation after generation. In temperate climates throughout many parts of the world you will find these cheerful little yellow flowers among the first to appear in the spring.

Something of a similar situation concerns the cheetah, which lacks enough genetic material to produce sub-species diversity. An in-depth analysis of the cheetah problem will be found in "Genetics of Cheetahs," Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1987, pp. 178-179. Other species lacking genetic diversity include giant pandas and elephant seals.

How could evolutionary theory produce the dandelion or the cheetah?ORIGIN OF SEX—Evolutionists are overwhelmed by the problem of sexual dimorphism. Why are there male and female of most of the millions of species in the world? Evolutionists complain that nature could have accomplished the task of producing offspring far easier without it.

*Milner explains some of the problems:

"[The many problems] make the whole rigmarole seem downright maladaptive. Yet it is common, while asexual reproduction is rare . . The origin of sex remains one of the most challenging questions in [evolutionary] biology.

"Even Charles Darwin thought natural selection could not account for peacocks’ tails or similar fantastic structures so prominent in courtship displays. On the contrary, elaborate appendages or tail feathers could easily get in the way when animals had to escape enemies . . Still, if elaborate plumage makes the birds more vulnerable to predators, why should evolution favor them?"—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 402-404.AN UNALTERABLE LAW—There is a law existing among all living things that has no exception. The law is stated in the first book in the Bible. It is the Law of the Genesis kinds:

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind . . great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . . the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind."—Genesis 1:12, 21, 25.

This is the law of fixity of basic kinds of living things. This phrase, "after his kind," is used 30 times in the books of Moses, particularly in Genesis (especially in chapters 1, 6, and 7), Leviticus 11, and Deuteronomy 14.

The Genesis kinds were set up back in the beginning. From that time down to the present day, there has been a wall of separation between different Genesis kinds.AN INTELLIGENT PURPOSE—It is totally impossible to explain anything in plants, animals, earth, or stars—apart from intelligent purpose. Randomness, accidents, and chance will never answer the mystery of life and being, structure and function, interrelationships and fulfilled needs that we find all about us. The food you eat for breakfast, the flowers in the field, the bees busily working, the moon circling above you—it all speaks of thoughtful purpose and intelligence of the highest level. —And it is Intelligence acting upon the food, flowers, bees, and moon; it is not intelligence within those objects and creatures. It is not intelligence within nature that produces the wonders of nature. The Creator is responsible for what we see about us, not the creature.

In stark contrast, evolution speaks of crudity, confusion, accidents, mistakes, damage, and errors; for that is all it has to offer in its mechanisms of natural selection and mutations.KEEPING CLOSE TO THE AVERAGE—Because each species in the world operates within the definite limits of the pool of possible traits in its DNA, we should expect two effects: (1) a number of varieties can be bred, and (2) when not specially guarded, the varieties will tend to move back toward the average.

And this is what we find in the world about us. Regarding the first point, most of us are all acquainted with the accomplishments of plant and animal breeders.

As to the second, there is a principle involved in intelligence and aptitude testing which is never violated. Educational psychologists call it regression toward the mean. According to this principle, some people may excel in certain skills, aptitudes, or intellectual abilities. But, as a rule, their descendants will generally move back toward the mean, or mathematical average. This is because mankind, like all other species, has definite limitations determined by its gene pool.

(Keep in mind that much of the excelling in life is done by commonplace people who work hard to succeed. So do not worry about the averages; like the rest of us you may be very ordinary, but you can personally succeed outstandingly in a worthwhile work, and so fulfill God’s plan for your life. Honesty and hard work is of more value than better intellectual ability without it.)

If everything keeps moving back toward the average, there can be no evolution. The principle of regression toward the mean rules out evolution. Variations may and do occur within species, but there will be no moving out from the species to form different species.

"Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980, p. 884.BUMPUS’ SPARROWS—Hermon Bumpus was a zoologist at Brown University. During the winter of 1898, he, by accident, produced one of the only field experiments in survival by natural selection. One morning, in Providence, Rhode Island, he found 136 stunned house sparrows on the ground. Bringing them to his laboratory, he cared for them all, and 72 revived while 64 died. He then weighed them and made careful measurements (length, wingspan, beak, head, humerus, femur, skull, etc.) of each of the 136.

"Comparing the statistics of the two groups, he found the measurements of the birds that survived were closer to the mean of the group than were those of the birds that died. This type of mortality, where extremes are eliminated, is referred to as balanced phenotype, or stabilizing selection . . Even today, ‘Bumpus’ Sparrows’ continues to be quoted in about five published scientific articles every year."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 61.

In "Bumpus’ Sparrows" we find yet another evidence of the fact that those creatures which are the closest to the average of each species are the most hardy. Yet, if that is true, then it would lock each species all the more away from veering off and changing into another species. And there can be no evolution within species crossover.AN OUTER WALL—There is an outer wall, beyond which a species cannot go. Its internal genetic code forbids it to change beyond certain limits. Even when highly trained scientists breed plants or animals, they eventually reach that code barrier.

"Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution."—On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 9.


EC308.jpg (664047 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—ATP is made in eleven steps. Twice in those steps it is formed (two molecules formed at step 7 and two at step 10). Since two molecules of ATP are used to prime the entire process (step 1) initiating the breakdown of glucose, a net gain of only two molecules results from the entire eleven-step process of breaking down glucose pyruvate.HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—Before concluding this chapter, we want to provide you with just one example of the thousands of complicated processes which occur constantly within your body.ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is a high-energy phosphate compound which provides each cell in living tissue with all the energy it needs to carry on its work. What is more, the cell manufactures the ATP out of raw materials. This ATP is then stored in tiny bean-shaped structures within the cell, called mitochondria. It is made in the leaves of plants and the cells of animals and man.

If the cell can do it, why can’t we do it also? ATP would solve all our energy problems. On the chart on a nearby page, you will find what your body, "by merest chance," regularly does. That extremely complicated formula is supposed to be the result of "natural selection."

As you will notice on the nearby chart, ATP is made in eleven steps. All the steps must be completed in order to produce additional ATP. How long did the cells within living creatures wait till the randomness of "natural selection" devised this utterly complicated formula. If living plants and animals did not make it constantly, they could not live; so, from the very beginning, ATP had to be made.ONLY SEVEN WAYS—(*#9/15 Planned Breeding vs. Natural Selection*) Looking a little deeper at this subject, there are only seven ways in which change can occur within an organism:

1 - An individual can change his attitudes. Instead of being a sourpuss, he can start being cheerful about all the situations and problems he must encounter daily.

But a change in attitudes will not result in a change across a Genesis kind.

2 - An individual can have a physical accident. The result might be a loss of a limb. But losing a limb is not a basis for evolution. One researcher tried cutting the tails off rats for nineteen generations. The offspring continued to be born with tails.

3 - An individual can suffer other environmental effects. Such changes can cause marked effects in the appearance of individuals. If the ears of sun-red corn are left enclosed within the husk while developing, the kernels will be colorless. But if the husk is torn open so the sunlight contacts the developing ears, a red pigment will develop within the kernels.

Appearance may have been changed, but not the genes. The genes of the corn continue on from generation to generation, and only those ears in any given generation that are exposed to sunlight will have red kernels.

Environmental effects may include differential feeding, light, training, and other things can affect an individual; but these will not change his genes. As mentioned earlier, the feet of Chinese women were for centuries kept small by tightly binding them. Yet modern Chinese women, whose feet are no longer bound, are normal in size.

4 - One type of hereditary variation is known as a recombination. But it cannot produce new kinds, for it is only a reshuffling of genes already present. Recombination is the combining of dominant and recessive genes. Here are some examples:

Black-and-white Holstein cattle are the result of a dominant gene. If a calf of this breed has received a gene for black and white from even one parent, that calf will generally be black and white. The other parent may be red and white, but the calf will still be black and white. But in some cases, two recessive genes meet, and then a red-and-white calf is born. But the calf will still grow up to be a cow; the recessive gene will not have transformed him into a goat.

Another example would be the genes for white and brown in sheep. White is dominant, so most sheep are born white. But occasionally that recessive gene for brown will produce a brown sheep. These effects are called reversions or "throwbacks." But the result is still sheep. These hereditary variations are part of Mendelian genetics.5 - A second type of hereditary variation is called polyploidy (or ploidy). It is keyed to a variation in the numbers of chromosomes and rearrangements of chromosomal material. But it does not produce change across Genesis kinds.

Normal cells are diploid, with double sets of similar chromosomes, but reproductive cells are haploid, with only one set. Haploid male and haploid female cells unite in the zygote to form a new diploid cell. But in polyploidy, found in many plants but rarely in animals, three or more haploid sets of chromosomes are together in the cells of an organism. Man can produce polyploid cells in plants in several ways, including the use of such chemicals as coichicine.

Here are some examples: The pink-flowered horse chestnut (Aesculus Camea) comes from two parents, each of which had 20 chromosomes in their germ cells. The result is a horse chestnut with 40, which has pink flowers! Geneticists call this ploidy, but all that happened is a slightly different horse chestnut. It has not changed into a maple tree.

There are also ploidy squirrels and ploidy fruit flies. Each time, the creature is slightly different in some way, but it always remains basically unchanged. The one is still a squirrel and the other is still a fruit fly.

"Waltzing mice" cannot run in straight lines, but only in circles. They are the result of ploidy, or changes in their chromosomes. But they are still mice.

Sometimes these new strains are called new "species," but it matters not. Names wrongly applied do not change the facts. They remain the same Genesis kinds; they are still mice, squirrels, chestnuts, or whatever their parents were. Because no mutation is involved in polyploids, no new genetic material results and no radical change in form occurs. So polyploidy cannot produce evolution.6 - Hybridization can occur. This is a process by which men artificially pollinate across species in a genus. Because the offspring are sterile, hybridizing must continually take place. This is similar to breeding a horse and donkey and getting a sterile mule.

"In the process of hybridization, two different species of the same genus (in most cases) are crossed in order to combine the good qualities of both . . Frequently the new hybrid is stronger than either parent. The offspring are sterile and require constant hybridizing."—*Biology for Today, p. 294.7 - Is there nothing that can affect the genes?

Yes, radiation, X-rays, atomic bombs, ultraviolet light, and certain chemicals,—for they can produce mutations. With mutations we have come to something which can make tiny changes within the genes.

The study of mutations is so important that we will deal with it in detail in the next chapter (chapter 10, Mutations). But we will here summarize part of it:

A mutation is a change in a hereditary determiner, —a DNA molecule inside a gene. Genes, and the millions of DNA molecules within them, are very complicated. If such a change actually occurs, there will be a corresponding change somewhere in the organism and in its descendants.

If the mutation does not kill the organism, it will weaken it. But the mutation will not change one species into another. Mutations are only able to produce changes within the species. They never change one kind of plant or animal into another kind.THINKING IN A CIRCLE—(*#4/5 Survival of the Fittest is Meaningless / #8/6 Natural Selection is Based on Reasoning in a Circle*) The very terms, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are actually circular reasoning! They are tautologies. "Change is caused by what causes change." "That which is fit survives, because it is the fittest.""Those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."

"It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 49."Those that leave the most offspring."

"For them [the Darwinists], natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring."—*Gregory Alan Peasely, "The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection," Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38, February 1982, p. 74.

"I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory."—*S. Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 193."The fittest leave the most offspring."

"Natural selection turns out on closer inspection to be tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring."—*C. Waddington, "Evolutionary Adaptation," in Evolution After Darwin (1960), Vol. 1, pp. 381, 385.They multiply, because they multiply.

"Thus we have as the question: ‘why do some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out? To which is offered as answer: Because some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out. "The two sides of the equation are the same. We have a tautology. The definition is meaningless."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47."Anything that produces change."

"[*George Gaylord Simpson says:] ‘I . . define selection, a technical term in evolutionary studies, as anything tending to produce systematic, heritable change in population between one generation and the next’ [*G.G. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 138].

"But is such a broad definition of any use? We are trying to explain what produces change. Simpson’s explanation is natural selection, which he defines as what produces change. Both sides of the equation are again the same; again we have a tautology . . If selection is anything tending to produce change, he is merely saying that change is caused by what causes change . . The net explanation is nil."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 49.

The survivors are the fittest, and the fittest survive.

"Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ affords no explanation of mimicry or of any other form of evolution. It means nothing more than ‘the survivors survive.’ Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive."—*E.W. MacBride, Nature, May 11, 1929, p. 713.

In the chapter on fossils, we will discover that the fossil/strata theory is also entirely based on circular reasoning!CONCLUSION—We have found that natural selection does not produce evolution; that is, change from one true species into another. It is useless for this purpose.

In fact, natural selection is obviously is misnamed: It is "natural variation," not "natural selection"—for it is only composed of simple variations, or gene reshuffling, within an existing species. Or to be even more accurate, it is "random variation."It is NOT "selection."

"Selection" requires a thinking mind, and evolutionists tell us no thinking mind is involved in these random changes within species. Mindless activity results in variations; it is only purposive activity by an intelligent agent that selects.

The phrase, "natural selection," implies something that it is not true. It gives the impression of thinking intelligence at work while, by the evolutionists’ own admission, only random activity is said to be doing this.

According to *Macbeth, so-called "natural selection" just provides variation for each creature within a given species, and then that creature dies,—and what has natural selection accomplished?

"I think the phrase [natural selection] is utterly empty. It doesn’t describe anything. The weaker people die, a lot of stronger people die too, but not the same percentage. If you want to say that is natural selection, maybe so, but that’s just describing a process. That process would presumably go on until the last plant, animal and man died out."—*Norman Macbeth, "What’s Wrong with Darwinism" (1982), [paleontologist, American Museum].


It all starts with two termites, a king and queen. They lay eggs, but never teach their offspring anything. How can they, when they have almost no brains and are all blind? Working together, the young build large termite towers, part of which rise as much as 20 feet in the air. Each side may be 12 feet across. The narrow part lies north and south, so the tower receives warmth in the morning and late afternoon, but less in the heat of midday. Scientists have discovered that they build in relation to magnetic north. Because it rains heavily at times, the towers have conical roofs and sides sloping from smaller at the top to larger at the bottom. 

The eaves of the towers project outward, so the rain cascades off of them and falls away from the base of the tower. That takes more thinking than a termite is able to give to the project. When they enlarge their homes, they go up through the roof and add new towers and minarets grouped around a central sphere. The whole thing looks like a castle. In this tower is to be found floor after floor of nursery sections, fungus gardens, food storerooms, and other areas, including the royal chambers where the king and queen live. If termites were the size of humans, their residential/office/building/factory complex would be a mile high. 

Yet these are tiny, blind creatures, the size and intelligence of worms. Then there is their air-conditioning system. In the center of the cavernous below-ground floor is a massive clay pillar, supporting the ceiling of this cellar. Here is where their Central Air Conditioning System Processor is located. It consists of a spiral of rings of thin vertical vanes, up to 6 inches deep, centered around the pillar, spiraling outward. The coils of each row of the spiral are only an inch or so apart. The lower edge of the vanes have holes to increase the flow of air around them. The vanes cool the air, and a network of flues carries the hot air down to the cellar. 

From high up in the tower these ventilating shafts run downward. But carbon dioxide must be exchanged for oxygen, which the few, guarded entrances cannot provide. So the top of the flues butt against special very porous earthen material in the top walls of the tower, just inside the projecting eaves. Fresh air is thus carried throughout the towers by the ventilating system.




1 - Could natural selection produce the human eye?

2 - Write about the peppered moth of England, and why it is not an evidence of evolution.

3 - Natural selection is randomness in action. Place 24 marbles in a solid 3 x 3 square in the center of a less-used room in your house. With a kick of your foot, apply natural selection to the marbles. Return to the room six times a day for five days and apply additional natural selection to the marbles. Under the title, "Natural Selection in action," write notes on the highly integrated structures produced by the marbles over a period of time. Did they form themselves into a box? or a mouse?

4 - Write a paragraph explaining what evolutionists mean by natural selection. Write a second paragraph explaining why it is incapable of doing what they want it to do.

5 - What is reasoning in a circle? Why is natural selection actually this kind of circular reasoning?

6 - How is "survival of the fittest" merely circular reasoning?

7 - Why was Herman Bumpus’ research study on those 136 sparrows so important?

8 - Explain the difference between in-species or sub-species variations, and cross-species changes.

9 - Select one of the following, and explain why it is not an evidence of evolution (which requires change across species): antibiotic-resistant flies, DDT-resistant bacteria, new varieties of tomatoes.

10 - What was Darwin’s error in thinking that the Galapagos finches were an evidence of evolution?

11 - How does the population principle of regression toward the mean rule out the possibility of cross-species evolutionary change?

12 - Darwin later gave up on natural selection as a method for cross-species change, and returned to Lamarckism. What is Lamarckism and why is it unscientific?



Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here