The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (12 page)

Scholars have made special note of Lucy's small apelike braincase, comparable in size to those of chimpanzees when measured relative to overall body size (the brain was estimated to be
about one-fourth the size of that of a human42). The jaws and
face were apelike.43 Lucy's teeth were far larger than those of a
human. She was probably about three feet, six inches tall and
weighed less than 60 pounds, far less than a human.44 Scholars
have also noted that the hands and feet of other more recent
Australopithecus afarensis discoveries are chimpanzee-like and not
human. Indeed, the hands and feet are typically long and curved,
common among tree-dwelling apes that swing on branches.45 As
for the claim that Lucy could walk upright, the evidence reveals
she could walk somewhat upright, much like pygmy chimps do
today. She certainly could not walk fully upright like human
beings. Lucy's knee structure points more to tree-climbing abilities than the ability to walk upright.46

Because of such evidence, Lucy has been dismissed as an
ancestor for man-not just by creationists but by respected secularists. Britain's Lord Solly Zuckerman, an authority on the
Australopithecus, concluded that the evidence that this animal
walked upright is extremely flimsy. Charles Oxnard, former
professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California
Medical School, did a computer analysis of the Australopithecus
skeleton and concluded that it is "now irrevocably removed"
from a place in the evolution of man's ability to walk on two
feet and "from any place in the direct human lineage. "17

In this chapter we have seen that:

• Neanderthal man turned out to be not an ape-man but
rather truly human.

• Java man turned out to be an arboreal ape.

• Piltdown man turned out to be a colossal hoax.

• Peking man turned out to be a monkey.

• Nebraska man turned out to be a wild pig.

• Lucy was apparently a chimpanzee.

Yet, in each case, when these discoveries were made, the
popular media reported them as hard proof for evolution theory.
Even evolutionists have observed how sensational the press
reports can be. Richard Fortey writes:

Every discovery of a new hominid fossil makes the
news. The reports that have appeared in the newspapers over the years are interesting for the light they cast
upon the psychology of both scientist and the
reporter. I have never seen a new discovery reported
as SMALL TOEBONE ADDS DETAIL TO
AFRICAN HOMINID. It is always something like
NEW FIND OF FOSSIL MAN OVERTURNS
GENESIS, and the accounts nearly always include
phrases claiming that the textbooks will now have to
be rewritten.48

Despite all the media hoopla about alleged ape-men,
however, no hard evidence yet exists for their reality. To be sure,
we do have lots of fossils and bones of human beings, and we
do have lots of fossils and bones of apes, but we do not have
any fossils or bones of transitional ape-men, nor do we have
any fossils demonstrating that human beings and apes derived
from a common ancestor. The fossil record seems to indicate
that apes have always been apes and humans have always been
humans.41 Though evolutionists do not want to hear it, this is perfectly compatible with what the Bible teaches regarding
creationism.51

Richard Milton, author of the book Shattering the Myths of
Darwinism, reveals a pattern in all these ape-men discoveries.

The pattern is a recurring one. The remains themselves are always meager. The first attribution is always
that the being whose remains have been discovered
shows both human and ape characteristics, and is therefore a genuine transitional type-a real missing link.
Then the attribution is questioned: the characters
ascribed to apes are actually within the range of human
characters;... or the reconstruction work is over imaginative; sometimes simple mistakes of identification are
made perhaps due to disease or malformation of bones.s'

Milton goes on to point out that in each case, what researchers
thought was a transitional link is either an ape or a human. And
such reassignments have been accepted by all but evolutionary
fanatics."

Even some evolutionists have expressed doubt about
alleged discoveries of man's ancestors. In his book Darwin's Ghost:
The Origin of Species Updated, Steve Jones writes:

In spite of a century's claims of the discovery of
"missing links," it is quite possible that no bone yet
found is on the direct genetic line to ourselves. With
so many kinds to choose from, so few remains of each,
and such havoc among the relics, none of the fossils
may have direct descendants today. 53

We can easily understand why Time magazine reported:

Despite more than a century of digging, the fossil
record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture
can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery
has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and
forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate .51

To throw one more wrench into the evolutionary hypothesis, people today have all kinds of different shapes. Just walk
down a crowded street in a busy city and you will see what I
mean. Skull shapes alone show all kinds of variety among
modern humans. When we evaluate evidence from the past,
looking at various skull discoveries, we can easily make false and
subjective assumptions regarding how this skull or that skull must
have been ancient ancestors to modern humans because of the
way they are shaped. Researchers would do well to keep in mind
the wide diversity of skull shapes among extant human beings.

What about evolutionist Ernst Mayr's argument that
human evolution is proved because of the similar anatomy
between humans and apes? Creationists have never disputed that
many animals in the world have obviously similar body appearances, including human beings and apes. However, this does not
demand that one descended from the other, or that they have
a common ancestor. That the Creator would design many of
His creatures with obvious similarities-such as eyes, ears, noses,
mouths, arms, legs, and so forth (with similar DNA)-makes
perfectly good sense because such characteristics are best suited
for living in the similar environment in which God has placed
us all. God in His wisdom knows that certain designs work best.

I close with the observation that while evolutionists often
accuse creationists of being unscientific, the evidence in this chapter suggests that evolutionists have repeatedly tried to pass off
science fiction as true science. In view of this, we should not be
disturbed the next time we read in the newspaper of some discovery presenting ironclad "proof" for the theory of evolution.

Evolution cannot occur without innumerable positive mutations occurring over an extremely long time. Darwinists believe
that such positive mutations are preserved by natural selection
to bring about not only changes within species but also entirely
new species. As theologian Charles Ryrie put it, "mutations +
natural selection + time = evolution."'

A mutation may be defined as "a change of the DNA sequence
within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the
creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental
type."2 In other words, since DNA contains genetic information, a mutation involves some kind of change in that information
so that a new character or trait emerges in the organism.

How do such mutations occur? Several possible causes exist.
Small random copying errors of the commands of the DNA's
genetic code often occur.3 One expert notes that "each living
cell has an intricate molecular machinery designed for the copying of DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying
processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in
every 10,000-100,000 copies a gene will contain a mistake."4
These kinds of copying errors do not happen very often because "the cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes."' Other
causes of mutations are external, such as being exposed to radiation (like X-rays), mustard gas, or highly toxic chemicals.'

Michael Behe illustrates a mutation (a change in DNA) with
an analogy. If you compare DNA to a step-by-step list of
instructions-for example, to build a motorcycle-a mutation
might be likened to a change in one of the lines of instructions. For example, instead of "Attach the seat to the top of
the engine," the instructions might be changed to read, "Attach
the seat to the handlebars."7 This "mutation" would obviously
be deleterious to the motorcycle. Similarly, a change in the
information in human DNA (due to a negative mutation) might
be deleterious and cause a human to be born without a limb.

In evolutionary theory, mutations are directly related to natural selection, a concept I introduced in chapter 1. Natural selection involves the idea that each species typically produces far
more members than can possibly be supported by the environment. In view of this, a struggle for survival entails with each
member vying for the limited resources in the environment.
This struggle has winners and losers. The winners are typically
the more superior of the species, and the losers are typically the
more inferior. The winners survive and pass on their superior
characteristics to their offspring, and the losers die off.'

The winners also allegedly develop ever-new characteristics
that enhance the possibility of survival.' An organism-typically due to harsh environmental demands-may pass on positive mutational changes to offspring, causing them to develop
positive characteristics the parents did not have, characteristics
that give a competitive advantage for survival and enhance
fitness." (A polar bear in a cold environment might pass on a
positive mutation to its offspring, causing a thicker coat of hair.)
These offspring with positive new characteristics are then
preserved by natural selection." An organism that develops a
negative characteristic due to a negative mutation does not survive, and that negative characteristic is bred out of the evolutionary line of development. This process is described as "survival
of the fittest."12

This process is believed to repeat itself generation by generation. Over a very long period of time, many such positive
mutational changes occur, the result being that the organism
grows increasingly complex and may evolve into an entirely
different species with novel features." Evolutionists suggest that
such positive mutations account for how all life developed on
earth from a single-celled living organism (an organism which
itself somehow naturally emerged from nonlife). Of course, the
long transition from a single-celled organism to a complex lifeform like a human being would demand literally trillions upon
trillions of positive mutational changes.

What if a particular organism was already well adapted and
well suited to its particular environment? Darwinian theory holds
that in such a case, if the environment remains stable and no
subsequent mutations occur, then no evolutionary development
will take place in that organism. In such a case there is no environmental pressure for mutational changes to take place. 14
(Natural selection apparently holds to the idea, "If it's not broke,
don't fix it.") This may account for the fact, evolutionists say,
that some species seem not to change over long periods of time.

One purpose of this book is to argue against the possibility
of Darwinian evolution, which places great stock in natural selection. But in arguing against the idea that natural selection can
cause one species to transition into another, one might surmise
that natural selection never occurs at all. This would be a wrong
conclusion.

The evidence is clear that natural selection does occur in
our world, but it always involves limited changes within species.
A popular textbook example of natural selection involves peppered moths resting upon tree trunks. 'I Such moths can be
either black or white. According to evolutionary lore, a situation arose in a village in England in which the tree trunks became
covered with a light-colored fungus. At this time, allegedly 98
percent of the peppered moths were white. The black moths
did not survive because they were easy prey for birds (with their
dark bodies against the light background of the fungus). The
white-colored moths were more safe, for they were camouflaged
as they rested upon the lightly colored fungus on the tree trunks.
However, pollution soon increased in the area and killed the
fungus on the tree trunks. Now, because the dark bark on the
tree trunks became visible, the white moths became easy prey
for birds (with their light bodies against the dark background).
The percentage allegedly shifted to 98 percent black moths.''

The problem with this account is that Jonathan Wells, in
an article entitled "Second Thoughts on Peppered Moths" (The
Scientist, May 1999), provided convincing proof that moths typically do not ever land on tree trunks during the day. He noted
that during 25 years of research with peppered moths, the moths
had been seen to land on tree trunks only twice. Most of the
time they land on higher branches in the tree. This undermines
the whole peppered moth "proof" for natural selection." But
even if the account were legitimate, it would simply be a demonstration of natural selection within a species. Certainly the
account tells us nothing about how the moth originally came
into being and gives no hint of the moth evolving into another
species.' As creationist John Morris puts it, "Variation within
a specific created type occurs all the time. Natural selection can
select the variant best suited for an environment, but natural
selection does not create anything new."'9