CHAPTER TWO
MAN THE EVOLUTIONARY MISFIT

 

 

 

Dangerous Ideas
In November 1859, Charles Darwin published a most dangerous idea - that all living things had evolved by a process of natural selection.

 

Although there was almost no mention of mankind in Darwin’s treatise, the implications were unavoidable, and led to a more radical change in human self-perception than anything before it in recorded history.

 

In one blow, Darwin had relegated us from divinely-created beings to apes which had evolved by the impersonal mechanism of natural selection. So dangerous was this idea to the religious establishment that, in 1925, a Tennessee schoolteacher, John Scopes, was put on trial, accused of teaching Darwin’s new “Theory of Evolution”. In a famous case, the theologians of the day scored a landmark victory. Since then, Darwinian thinking has staged quite a comeback.

 

There is little doubt that the present-day evolutionists, zealously led by champions such as Richard Dawkins, are now winning the arguments. These scientists have refined Darwin’s theory considerably, and are able to offer ever more elaborate evidence of the process of natural selection at work. Using examples from the animal kingdom, they have discredited the entire Biblical account of creation.

But are the scientists right in applying evolution to the two-legged hominid known as man? Charles Darwin himself was strangely quiet on this point,? but his co-discoverer Alfred Wallace was less reluctant to express his views.’ Wallace clearly suspected an intervention of some kind, when he stated that “some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man”. One hundred years of science have failed to prove Wallace wrong.

 

Anthropologists have failed miserably to produce fossil evidence of the “missing link” with the apes, and there has been a growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human brain. It is as if science has come full circle, to a point where many feel severe discomfort with the evolutionary theory as it applies to Homo sapiens. Here then is another dangerous idea. If we replace a creation by God, at a supernatural level, with a genetic enhancement by flesh-and-blood Gods at a physical level, can the evolutionists survive a rational debate on a purely scientific basis?

Today, four out of ten Americans find it difficult to believe that humans are related to the apes. Why is this so? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee! Man is intelligent, naked and highly sexual, a species apart from his alleged primate relatives. This may be an intuitive observation but it is actually supported by scientific study. In 1911, the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith listed the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each of the primate species, calling them “generic characters” which set each apart from the others.

 

His results were as follows: gorilla 75: chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116, man 312. Keith thus showed that mankind was nearly three times more distinctive than any other ape. How do we reconcile Sir Arthur Keith’s study with the scientific evidence which shows a 98 per cent genetic similarity between man and the chimpanzee?’

 

I would like to turn this ratio around and ask how a 2 per cent difference in DNA can account for the astonishing difference between man and his primate “cousins” After all, a dog shares 98 per cent of its genes with a fox, yet the two animals closely resemble each other. Somehow we must explain how a mere 2 per cent genetic difference can account for so many value added features in mankind - the brain, language and sexuality - to name but a few.

Furthermore, it is a strange fact that Homo sapiens has only 46 chromosomes compared to 48 in chimpanzees and gorillas. The theory of natural selection has been unable to suggest how the fusing together of two chromosomes - a major structural change - should have come about.

Is it credible that natural selection, via a random algorithmic process, could have focused our 2 per cent of genetic mutations into the most advantageous areas? The idea is, quite frankly, preposterous. It is an idea born of the paradigm that, since we exist. and since the chimp is our closest genetic relation, that we evolved from a common ancestor of the chimp.

 

The missing possibility, which explains the highly focused change in human DNA, is the unthinkable idea of genetic intervention by the Gods. But is it really so unthinkable? Fifty years ago. before the discovery of the genetic code. it may have been so. But in the late twentieth century. it is a fact that we now possess the genetic capability to act as “Gods” by creating life on another planet.

In this chapter, I submit in evidence mankind himself. As a wise man once said: “since we are the result of events we seek, most answers will be found within ourselves". We will test the interventionist claims of the ancient civilizations against the current accepted wisdom of mankind’s uninterrupted and gradual evolution.

 

What we will find is missing evolutionary links, a too-rapid time scale and, finally, biological features that do not fit the known evolutionary history on planet Earth. It is my intention that this chapter should in fact strengthen natural selection as a general theory. For, by relocating the evolution of Homo sapiens to the evolutionary home of the Gods themselves, I will effectively be removing the biggest dilemma of the Darwinists from their frame of reference.
 

 


Darwinism Today
In order to throw down the gauntlet to the evolutionists, it is essential to conduct the fight in their own territory. A basic understanding of state-of-the-art Darwinian thinking is therefore essential. When Darwin first put forward his theory of evolution by natural selection, he could not possibly have known the mechanism by which it occurred.

 

It was almost one hundred years later, in 1953, that James Watson and Francis Crick discovered that mechanism to be DNA and genetic inheritance. Watson and Crick were the scientists who discovered the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, the chemical which encodes genetic information. Our schoolchildren now understand that every cell in the body contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, onto which are fixed approximately 100,000 genes making up what is known as the human genome.

 

The information contained in these genes is sometimes switched on, to be read, sometimes not, depending on the cell and the tissue (muscle, bone or whatever) which is required to be produced. We also now understand the rules of genetic inheritance, the basic principle of which is that half of the mother’ s and half of the father’s genes are recombined.

How does genetics help us to understand Darwinism? It is now understood that our genes undergo random mutations as they are passed through the generations. Some of these mutations will be bad, some good. Any mutation which gives a survival advantage to the species will by and large, over many many generations, spread through the whole population.

 

This accords with the Darwinian idea of natural selection, a continuous struggle for existence in which those organisms best fitted to their environment are the most likely to survive. By surviving, their genes are more likely, statistically, to be carried into later generations through the process of sexual reproduction. A common misconception with natural selection is that genes will directly improve in response to their environment, causing optimal adjustments of the organism.

 

It is now accepted that such adaptations are in fact random mutations which happened to suit the environment and thus survived. In the words of Steve Jones, “we are the products of evolution, a set of successful mistakes”. How fast is the process of evolution? The experts all agree with Darwin’s basic idea that natural selection is a very slow, continuous process.

 

As one of today’s great champions of evolution, Richard Dawkins, put it:

“nobody thinks that evolution has ever been jumpy enough to invent a whole new fundamental body plan in one step”.

 

"Indeed, the experts think that a big evolutionary jump, known as a macro-mutation. is extremely unlikely to succeed, since it would probably be harmful to the survival of a species which is already well adapted to its environment. We are thus left with a process of random genetic drift and the cumulative effects of genetic mutations.

 

Even these minor mutations, however, are thought to be generally harmful. Daniel Dennett neatly illustrates the point by drawing an analogy with a game whereby one tries to improve a classic piece of literature by making a single typographical change.

 

Whilst most changes such as omitted commas or mis-spelled words would have negligible effect, those changes which were visible would in nearly all cases damage the original text. It is rare, though not impossible, for random change to improve the text.’”

The odds are already stacked against genetic improvement, but we must add one further factor.

 

A favourable mutation will only take hold if it occurs in small isolated populations. This was the case on the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin carried out much of his research. Elsewhere, favourable mutations will be lost and diluted within a larger population, and scientists admit that the process will be a lot slower.

If the evolution of a species is a time-consuming process, then the separation of one species into two different species must be seen as an even longer process. Speciation - which Richard Dawkins has termed the “long goodbye” - is defined as the point where two groups within the same species are no longer able to inter breed. Dawkins compares the genes of different species to rivers of genes which flow through time for millions of years.

 

The source of all these rivers is the genetic code which is identical in all animals, plants and bacteria that have ever been studied. The body of the organism soon dies but, through sexual reproduction, acts as a mechanism which the genes can use to travel through time. Those genes which work well with their fellow-genes. and which best assist the survival of the bodies through which they pass, will prevail over many generations. But what causes the river, or species, to divide into two branches?

 

To quote Richard Dawkins:

“The details are controversial, but nobody doubts that the most important ingredient is accidental geographical separation.”

As unlikely as it may seem, statistically, for a new species to occur, the fact is that there are today approximately 30 million separate species on Earth, and it is estimated that a further 3 billion species may have previously existed and died out. One can only believe this in the context of a cataclysmic history of planet Earth - a view which is becoming increasingly common. Today, however, it is impossible to pinpoint a single example of a species which has recently (within the last half a million years) improved by mutation or divided into two species with the exception of viruses, evolution appears to be all incredibly slow process.

 

Daniel Dennett recently suggested that a time scale of 100,000 years for the emergence of a new animal species would be regarded as “sudden”.

”At the other extreme, the humble horseshoe crab has remained virtually unchanged for 200 million years.”

The consensus is that the normal rate of evolution is somewhere in the middle.

 

The famous biologist Thomas Huxley for example, stated that:

Large changes [in species] occur over tens of millions of years, while really major ones (macro changes) take a hundred million years or so.

And yet mankind is supposed to have benefited from not one. but several macro-mutations in the course of only six million years!

 

In the absence of fossil evidence, we are dealing with extremely theoretical matters. Nevertheless. modern science has managed, in a number of cases, to provide feasible explanations of how a step-by-step evolutionary process can produce what appears to be a perfect organism.

 

The most celebrated case is a computer-simulated evolution of the eye by Nilsson and Pelger. Starting with a simple photocell, which was allowed to undergo random mutations, Nilsson and Pelger’s computer generated a feasible development to full camera eye, whereby a smooth gradient of chance occurred with an improvement at each intermediate step.

This idea of gradiented, or incremental, change is central to the modern view of evolution. The key point is that for a mutation to successfully spread through a population, each step will only be as perfect as it needs to be to give a survival edge. Richard Dawkins uses the example of cheetahs and antelopes to demonstrate how this genetic rivalry works: the cheetah seems perfectly designed to maximize deaths among antelopes, whilst the antelope seems equally well-designed to avoid death by cheetah.

 

The result is two species in equilibrium, where the weakest individuals die but both species survive. This principle was first put forward by Alfred Wallace when he stated that, “nature never over-endows a species beyond the needs of everyday existence." It is the same situation as the trees in a dense forest, which have over a very long time maximized their height in competition for the light. And so we return to the vexed question of the evolution of mankind himself, and we throw down the gauntlet to challenge Dawkins and Dennett in their own academic back yard.

 

For, in the remainder of this chapter, we will see astonishing examples of how we have evolved way beyond the requirements of everyday existence and in the complete absence of an intellectual rival. According to the modern theories of gradiented change and natural selection, many aspects of Homo sapiens are therefore an evolutionary impossibility!
 

 


In Search of the Missing Link
According to the experts, the rivers of human genes and chimpanzee genes split from a common ancestral source some time between 5 and 7 million years ago, whilst the river of gorilla genes is generally thought to have branched off slightly earlier.

 

In order for this speciation to occur, three populations of common ape ancestors (the future gorillas, chimpanzees and hominids) had to become geographically separated and thereafter subject to genetic drift, influenced by their different environments.

 

The search for the missing link is the search for the earliest hominid, the upright, bipedal ape who waved a long goodbye to his four-legged friends. Many scholars have had great difficulty accepting that our closest relations are the chimpanzees, which are culturally so different from us. However, recent studies have shown that one particular species of pygmy chimpanzee, known as the bonobos, is remarkably human-like in character.

 

Unlike other apes, the bonobos often copulate face to face and their sex life is said to make Sodom and Gomorrah look like a vicar’s tea party! It is thought that the bonobos and chimpanzee species split 3 million years ago, and it seems likely that our common ancestor with the apes may well have behaved more like the bonobos than the chimpanzee. I will now attempt to briefly summarize what is known about human evolution.

The search for the missing link has turned up a number of fossil contenders, dating from around 4 million years ago, but the picture remains very incomplete, and the sample size is too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. There are, however, three contenders for the prize of the first fully bipedal hominid, all discovered in the East African Rift valley which slashes through Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

 

The first contender, discovered in the Afar province of Ethiopia in 1974, is named Lucy, although her more scientific name is Australopithecus Afarensis. Lucy is estimated to have lived between 3.6-3.2 million years ago. Unfortunately her skeleton was only 40 per cent complete and this has resulted in controversy regarding whether she was a true biped, and whether in fact she may even have been a he !

The second contender is Australopithecus Ramidus, a 4.4 million year old pygmy chimpanzee-like creature, discovered at Aramis in Ethiopia by Professor Timothy White in 1994. Despite a 70 per cent complete skeleton, it has again not been possible to prove categorically whether it had two or four legs. The third contender, dated between-4.1-3.9 million years old, is the Australopithecus Anamensis, discovered at Lake Turkana in Kenya by Dr. Meave Leakey in August 1995. A shinbone from Anamensis has been used to back up the claim that it walked on two feet.

The evidence of our oldest ancestors is confusing, because they do not seem to be closely related to each other.

 

Anamensis, for instance, does not seem to be related to Ramidus. The inexplicable lack of fossil evidence for the preceding 10 million years has made it impossible to confirm the exact separation date of these early hominids from the four-legged apes.

 

It is also important to emphasize that many of these finds have skulls more like chimpanzees than men. They may be the first apes that walked, but as of 4 million years ago we are still a long way from anything that looked even remotely human. Moving forward in time, we find evidence of several types of early man, which are equally confusing. We have the 1.8 million year old, appropriately named, Robustus, the 2.5 million year old, more lightly built, Africanus, and the 1.5 to 2 million year old Advanced Australopithecus.

 

The latter, as the name suggests, is more man-like than the others, and is sometimes referred to as “near-man” or Homo Habilis (“handy man’). It is generally agreed that Homo Habilis was the first truly man-like being, which could walk efficiently and use very rough stone tools. The fossil evidence does not reveal whether rudimentary speech had developed at this stage.

Around 1.5 million years ago Homo erectus appeared on the scene. This hominid had a considerably larger brain-box (cranium) than its predecessors, and started to design and use more sophisticated stone tools. A wide spread of fossils indicates that Homo erectus groups left Africa and spread across China, Australasia and Europe between 1,000,000-700,000 years ago, but for unknown reasons disappeared altogether around 300,000-200,000 years ago.

 

There is little doubt, by a process of elimination, that this is the line from which Homo sapiens descended. The missing link, however, remains a mystery.

 

In 1995, The Sunday Times summarized the evolutionary evidence as follows:

“The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree delineating man’s descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone’s guess.”

As to the various contenders speculated as mankind’s ancestor, The Sunday Times stated:

“Their relationships to one another remain clouded in mystery and nobody has conclusively identified any of them as the early hominid that gave rise to Homo sapiens.”

The race to find the missing link continues. Rival anthropologists have raised millions of dollars to fund their searches. With stakes as high as this, there is no doubt that some major breakthroughs will have to be announced. And yet we should retain our sense of perspective. As one commentator has pointed out, there is no guarantee that any of these fossil discoveries actually left any descendants.

 

The evidence is so sparse that a few more sensational finds will still leave the scientists clutching at straws. Mankind’s evolutionary history will remain shrouded in mystery. Only one thing is clear: the fossils spanning the period from 6 million to I million years ago prove that the wheels of evolution turn very, very slowly indeed.
 

 


The Miracle of Man

  • Why has Homo sapiens developed intelligence and self-awareness whilst his ape cousins have spent the last 6 million years in evolutionary stagnation?

     

  • Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom developed an advanced level of intelligence?

The conventional answer is that we stood up, thereby releasing our two arms, and began to use tools.

 

This breakthrough accelerated our learning through a “feedback” system, which stimulated mental development.

The latest scientific research does confirm that electrochemical processes in the brain can sometimes stimulate the growth of dendrites, the tiny signal receptors which attach to the neurones (nerve cells). Experiments with caged rats have shown greater brain mass developing where the cages are full of toys rather than empty. But is this answer too simple! The kangaroo, for instance, is extremely dextrous and could have used tools, but never did, whilst the animal kingdom is full of species which do use tools but have never become intelligent. Here are some examples.

 

The Egyptian vulture throws stones at ostrich eggs to crack their tough shells. The woodpecker finch in the Galapagos Islands uses twigs or cactus spines in up to find different ways to root out wood-boring insects from rotten trees. The sea otter on the Pacific coast of North America uses a stone as a hammer to dislodge its favourite food, the abalone shellfish, and uses another stone as an anvil to smash open the shellfish.”

These are examples of simple tool use, but there is no sign of it leading anywhere. Our nearest relatives, the chimpanzees, also make and use simple tools,” but can you really see them evolving intelligence at our level? Why did we become intelligent whilst the chimpanzees did not? Could our upright posture have made a telling difference? Anthropologists generally agree that one group of apes must have left their forest-dwelling cousins for the open Savanna, possibly due to climatic change.

 

There, the direct heat of the Sun favoured genetic mutations which better enabled these apes to stand up and protect their brain from the higher temperatures at ground level. The vulnerability of these neo-hominids in the open Savanna might then have led to the favouring of random mutations in the brain which increased the chances of survival by stealth.

The new upright posture may also have led to physical changes in the evolution of the brain. Advocates of the “cranial radiator” theory, such as Professor Dean Falk, claim that fossilized remains show an enlarged occipital marginal sinus system and, in addition, tiny holes in the skull known as emissary foramina which allow blood vessels to penetrate the skull and enter the brain.

 

It is thought that these changes may have somehow accelerated the evolution of intelligence. But these changes would not have happened overnight. It is unlikely that a group of apes suddenly became totally bipedal, for the simple reason that to do so would have made them less agile and more vulnerable to predators. As one wag suggested, if you put a hungry lion, a human, a chimpanzee, a baboon and a dog in a large cage. it is obvious that the human will get eaten first!

What does the fossil record tell us about our evolving brain capabilities! Unfortunately the fossil record is not only sparse, but only tells us one half of the story. It is commonly assumed that a bigger skull implies greater cranial capacity and hence a bigger and better brain. This may be generally true, but size is not everything.

 

After all, compare the intelligence of an elephant’s 1 lb. brain with our own 3 lb. brain. Size alone misses the point that improvements can come from better wiring. A good analogy is the computer, which has been given vastly improved functionality, largely from better software. Unfortunately, our “software” is the brain tissue, and it does not hang around to be studied by paleoanthropologists!

What would we expect to see in the evolution of cranial capacity? According to the evolutionists, the development of our brain would have involved gradiented change, that is improvement via an extremely large number of very small steps. Natural selection would have favoured only those genes which produced an improvement in neural output which gave a useful survival edge. Would we therefore see incremental changes in size and efficiency: going hand in hand, or would the efficiency increase first until it reached a capacity constraint?

 

The latter might seem logical, but natural selection involves random genetic mutation and does not always achieve its ends via the most direct route. Irrespective of the route taken, we would expect a very slow increase in brain size and thus cranial capacity. Now let us review the fossil evidence on cranial capacity. The data varies considerably and must be treated with care (since the sample sizes are limited), but the following is a rough guide.

 

The early hominid Afarensis had around 500cc and Habilis/Australopithecus had around 700cc. Whilst it is by no means certain that one evolved from the other, it is possible to see in these figures the evolutionary effects over two million years of the hominid’s new environment. As we move forward in time to 1.5 million years ago, we find a sudden leap in the cranial capacity of Homo erectus to around 900-1000cc. If we assume, as most anthropologists do, that this was accompanied by an increase in intelligence, it represents a most unlikely macro-mutation. Alternatively, we might explain this anomaly by viewing erectus as a separate species whose ancestors have not yet been found, due to the poor fossil records.

Finally, after surviving 1.2 to 1.3 million years without any apparent change, and having successfully spread out of Africa to China, Australasia and Europe, something extraordinary happened to the Homo erectus hominid. Perhaps due to climatic changes, his population began to dwindle, until he eventually died out. And yet, while most Homo erectus were dying, one managed to suddenly transform itself into Homo sapiens, with a vast increase in cranial capacity from 950cc to 1450cc! It is widely accepted that we are the descendants of Homo erectus (who else was there to descend from?) but the sudden changeover defies all known laws of evolution!

Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass, with a narrowing population of Homo erectus leading to possibly one single mutant, whose improved genes emerged into a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is startling. Whilst Darwinists may well identify here the requisite small, isolated population, it nevertheless stretches the imagination to believe that our ancestor was a Clark Kent Super-Erectus that suddenly expanded his brain size by 50 per cent!

In my view, the paleo-anthropologists are concentrating their search for the missing link in the wrong time frame. We constantly read about the search for our oldest ape ancestor, but it is the Super-Erectus missing link that is much more intriguing.
 


Against All Odds
Back in 1953. it was thought that the hominid leading to mankind split from the apes 30 million years ago, and that we had evolved gradually into our present form. That period sets an unbiased benchmark of how long evolution possibly should have taken. Following the discovery that the split occurred only 6 million years ago, evolutionists have been forced to assume a much faster rate of evolution to explain our existence.

 

The other disconcerting discovery since 1954 is the shockingly slow evolutionary progress made by Homo erectus and his predecessors up to around 200,000 years ago. The evolutionary graph has thus changed from a nice straight line into an overnight explosion (Figure 5).

Anthropologists have continually attempted to demonstrate a gradiented evolution from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, albeit with sharp upward steps. However. their attempts to force the data to meet their preconceptions has been repeatedly exposed by new data. For example, it was originally believed that anatomically modern Homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon man) appeared only 331,000 years ago, and had thus descended from Neanderthal who had died out at the same time.

 

At that time, one of the most dramatic events in human history appears to have occurred. Cro-Magnon man suddenly arrived in Europe building shelters, organizing himself in clans, wearing skins for clothing, and designing special tools and weapons using wood and bones. It is to this phase of Homo sapiens that we attribute the magnificent cave art such as that at Lascaux, France, dated to 27,000 years ago.

 

But it is now accepted that, despite the behavioural differences, the European Cro-Magnon’s were no different anatomically from the Homo sapiens found in the middle East 100,000 years ago. Both would be virtually indistinguishable from the population today if dressed in modern clothes. It is also clear that Homo sapiens did not descend from Neanderthal as was previously thought.

 

Several recent discoveries in Israel have confirmed beyond any doubt that Homo sapiens coexisted with Neanderthal between 100-90,000 years ago. What then is our relationship to Neanderthal? We are used to seeing artists’ impressions based on his known characteristics of clumsy limbs and crude features, but everything else, such as the liberal body hair, is pure supposition, designed to give us the impression of an evolutionary continuum.

 

Recent discoveries have led to a major reappraisal of Neanderthal. In particular, a 60,000 year old Neanderthals remains were found at Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel in Israel, with an intact hyoid bone, virtually identical to our present-day hyoid. Since this bone makes human speech possible, the scientists were forced to conclude that Neanderthal had the capability to speak. And many scientists regard speech as the key to mankind’s great leap forward.

Most anthropologists now recognize Neanderthal as a fully fledged Homo sapien, who for a long time was behaviourally equivalent with other Homo sapiens. It is quite possible that Neanderthal was as intelligent and human-like as we are today. It has been suggested that his large and crude skull features may have simply been a genetic disorder similar to that of acromelagy.

 

Such disorders are quickly spread in small, isolated populations due to the effects of inbreeding.? As a result of the conclusive dating of contemporary Neanderthal and Homo sapiens remains, a new theory has emerged suggesting that both must have stemmed from an earlier “archaic” Homo sapiens. Several fossils have been found of this so-called archaic species, which combine different aspects of primitive erectus and modern human anatomy.

 

It is commonly cited, in the popular press, that these archaics emerged around 300,000 years ago, but once again this is pure supposition, based on a small sample size, preconceptions and guesswork. What are the real facts? In 1989, an advanced seminar was held on The Origins of Modern Human Adaptations, dealing specifically with the archaic-modern interface.

 

Summarizing the results of the discussions, Erik Trinkhaus reported that:

“The key point of agreement in the course of the seminar was that sometime during the later Pleistocene [the last 1 million years], in a relatively brief period of transition, there was a transformation from archaic to modern humans -a transformation manifested in both culture and biology.., the transformation from archaic to modern human witnessed not only the reorganization of the brain and body and a shift in stone working from a simple, expedient technology to a complex and elegant craft, but also the first appearance of true art and symbolism and the blossoming of formal systems of language.’’

Erik Trinkhaus stated that the primary issue of the seminar was the distinction between late archaic and early modern humans, but on the timing of the transformation he had this to say:

.”.. our control of fine chronology is inadequate for periods prior to the finite limits of radiocarbon dating (c. 351000 years BP) and from there back through most of the Middle Pleistocene.”

A further seminar in 1992 also focussed on the question of the transition from archaic to modern. One of the papers presented included the following comment:

“The time-scale of this transition lies beyond the dating range of C14 and therefore has necessitated the employment of a battery of new dating techniques.”

The various papers presented at the seminar were published by Aitken Stringer and Mellars in 1993, and focussed particularly on improved chronological dating methods. Significant progress was reported in a diverse range of new dating technologies - uranium-series dating, luminescence dating (thermal or optical) and electron spin resonance (ESR) - but each suffered various limitations in different circumstances. Nevertheless, many reliable datings, based on these methods (rather than radiocarbon, C14) were presented. Significantly, it was reported that all of the fossils of the archaics were poorly dated and could not be touched by any of the new technologies.

As for the moderns, the earliest definitive and reliable date was cited as 120-110,000 years Before Present (BP), at Qafzeh in Israel. None of the other dates. published by this esteemed group of scientists, was earlier than 200,000 years BP. The date of the emergence of the moderns could only be guessed at within a huge range from 500-200,000 years BP. That is the true state of scientific knowledge on the subject.

 

There is no proof that an archaic Homo sapiens existed 300,000 years ago, and no proof that Neanderthal dates back to 230,000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that Homo sapiens fossils suddenly appear within the last 200,000 years, without any clear record of their origins.

 

The Atlas of Ancient Archaeology sums up the situation as follows:

“The contemporary history of Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains bafflingly obscure.., so little do we know about the approach to one of the great turning points of our global history”

Meanwhile, Roger Lewin, writing in 1984, stated:

“The origin of fully modern humans denoted by the subspecies name Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains one of the great puzzles of palaeoanthropology.”

The appearance of Homo sapiens is more than a baffling puzzle - it is statistically close to impossible! After millions of years of negligible progress with stone tools, Homo sapiens suddenly emerged c. 200,000 years ago with a 50 per cent larger cranial capacity, together with the capability for speech and a fairly modern anatomy. For unexplained reasons, he then continued to live primitively, using stone tools for another 160,000 years.

 

Then, 40,000 years ago, he appeared to undergo what we might call a transition to modern behaviour. Having swept northwards, he expanded through most of the globe by 13,000 years ago. After another 1,000 years he discovered agriculture, 6,000 years later he formed great civilizations with advanced astronomical knowledge (see chapters 5 and 6), and here we are after another 6,000 years probing the depths of the Solar System!

The above scenario seems utterly implausible and flies in the face of our whole understanding of evolutionary theory as a slow and gradual process. Common sense would suggest at least another million years for Homo sapiens to develop from stone tools to using other materials, and perhaps a hundred million years to master mathematics, engineering and astronomy.
 

 


A Brain Teaser for Darwin
Earlier I pointed out that size is not everything, when it comes to brains.

 

Nevertheless. size is clearly an advantage when combined with a high level of operational efficiency. A four liter BMW is always going to outpace a two liter BMW unless the latter happens to be a later-generation, higher technology design. In this section we will see that Homo sapiens has the best of both worlds - a relatively large brain and a highly efficient design.

During the last ten years, scientists have used new imaging technologies (such as positron-emission tomography) to discover more about the human brain than ever before. The full extent of the complexity of its billions of cells has become more and more apparent. In addition to the brain’s physical complexity, its performance knows no bounds -mathematics and art, abstract thought and conceptualization and, above all. moral conscience and self-awareness.

 

Whilst many of the human brain’s secrets remain shrouded in mystery, enough has been revealed for National Geographic to boldly describe it as “the most complex object in the known universe.”

Evolutionists see the brain as nothing more than a set of algorithms, but they are forced to admit that it is so complex and unique that there is no chance of reverse engineering the evolutionary process that created it. For these reasons, the philosophers are tending to lead the field in formulating theories for the brain’s evolution.

The theologians have also had a field day with the discovery that the human brain is such a complex and perfect organ. However, leaving aside the irrational arguments for its divine creation, how might we disprove the gradualist evolutionary theory?

 

After all, we cannot make all of those early hominids sit an I.Q. test! And we cannot make judgments about their intelligence based simply on their behaviour, for it is quite possible to have an advanced level of intelligence without adopting the material culture that we recognize as civilization today. Fortunately, we can rely on a strong dose of armchair logic, an approach which is sometimes used by the eminent Richard Dawkins himself.

The human brain at birth is approximately one quarter of its adult size. The need for a large skull to house the fully grown adult brain causes human babies to have extremely large heads at birth (relative to other primates). Passing the baby’s head through the birth canal is therefore the major problem of childbirth, and causes acute pain to the mother.

To many biologists, gynaecologists and anatomists, it is a mystery why the female did not evolve a larger birth canal. The answer is simple - engineering. Such a change would have required a radical redesign in bone structure, an impossibility within the limits of a body which is designed for bipedal walking.

 

The birth canal is thus the limiting factor to man’s cranial capacity.

 

If we cast our minds back several hundred thousand years, before hospitals and midwives existed, it is not difficult to imagine that a large number of infants were stillborn or their mothers killed in childbirth. It therefore seems extremely doubtful that natural selection would favour a gene for large brain size, with its potential harmful consequences to both mother and child.

 

Simply put, such a gene would not have successfully spread. It seems much more likely that natural selection would have deselected the large brain and would have stumbled instead upon a better neural networking system, or alternatively a means to switch skull growth from pre-birth to post-birth. The fact that it did not, and the fact that the wiring of the brain also seems highly efficient in design, strongly indicates two essential evolutionary requirements. First, an incredibly long period, and secondly a pressing need to develop its optimum potential. Neither of these requirements are met by the established evolutionary circumstances.

Modern evolutionists agree that natural selection should only bestow as much of a new and better physical trend as is needed for survival. The cheetah and antelope which I mentioned earlier are typical of Richard Dawkins’ world, where progress comes from a constructive tension between species - a critical balance between survival and extinction. According to this scenario, the genes which make good brains are favoured by natural selection only because they are critical to survival.

Richard Dawkins illustrates his point with a story of how the motor car magnate Henry Ford instructed his staff to survey the scrapyards and find out which components of the “Model T” did not wear out. As a result, the kingpins were reengineered to a lower standard. According to Dawkins, the same principle applies to evolution by natural selection.

 

It is worth quoting Dawkins in full, for we will turn this argument back against him:

“It is possible for a component of an animal to be too good, and we should expect natural selection to favour a lessening of quality up to, but not beyond, a point of balance with the qualities of the other components of the body.”

Here then is the evolutionary crunch. As efficient as the brain is, the average human being does not use it to anywhere near its full capacity.

  • How then can Dawkins explain the massive over-engineering of the human brain?

  • What useful survival skills did music and mathematical ability give to our hunter ancestors?

The evolutionists would argue that the algorithms of the brain did not evolve for music and mathematics, but were “adapted” from developments for other purposes.

 

No-one, however, can suggest what these other purposes might have been, that led to such a highly evolved mental capabilities. Charles Darwin’s partner, Alfred Wallace, clearly recognized the contradiction when he wrote:

“An instrument [the human brain] has been developed in advance of the needs of its possessor.”

If we go back one million years to a time when man was fighting for survival,

  • How can Richard Dawkins explain how evolution seems to have favored non-essential abilities in art, music and mathematics?

  • Why did the brain, which must have been at least partly evolved already, not benefit from any types of useful survival skills such as enhanced smell, infra-red vision, improved hearing and so on?

The theory of evolution is supposed to explain everything, but it clearly does not explain the human brain.

 

It is for this reason that some highly esteemed modern scientists have begun to search for a different mechanism to natural selection. Alfred Wallace was the first to open this debate when he aired his suspicion that another factor, “some unknown spiritual element”, was needed to account for man’s unusual artistic and scientific abilities.

 

The final nail in the evolutionists’ coffin is this:

  • Where was the competitor that caused the brain of Homo sapiens to evolve to such an extreme level of size and complexity?

  • What rival caused intellectual ability to be such an essential survival development?

  • Who were we trying to outsmart?

  • Could inter-species competition be the explanation?

In modern times our most significant achievements, space travel and nuclear weapons for example, have come from superpower competition.

 

Did primitive men split into competitive, rival groups? Could Neanderthal have been a competitive threat to his fellow Homo sapiens?

 

On the contrary, the evidence suggests that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon peacefully co-existed.

 

Discoveries at the cave of St. Cesaire in France indicate that they lived in close proximity for thousands of years without fighting. Furthermore, early hominids continued to use simple stone tools for millions of years up to about 200,000 years ago.

 

There is no sign of any escalation in tool use caused by an inter-species conflict. In the absence of an intellectual rival that fits the time frame, the evolutionary scenario for the human brain remains completely implausible.
 

 


Language Barriers
Many scientists believe that language is the key to mankind’s great leap forward, since it uniquely enables us to communicate and transfer ideas and experiences from one generation to the next.

 

Until recently, this leap forward was associated with the behavioural changes which swept Europe around 40,000 years ago. Then, in 1983, came the shocking discovery of the 60,000 year old Neanderthal body bone mentioned earlier, which proved that Neanderthal could talk.

 

The origin of human language capability remains a controversial subject, and raises more questions than answers. Daniel Dennett sums up the state of confusion:

“... work by neuro-anatomists and psycholinguists has shown that our brains have features lacking in the brains of our closest surviving relatives, features that play crucial roles in language perception and language production. There is a wide diversity of opinion about when in the last six million years or so our lineage acquired these traits, in what order and why.”

Most scientists now believe that Homo sapiens had speech from their very beginning.

 

Studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggest that, since speech is widespread today, it must have developed from a genetic mutation in ‘’mitochondrial Eve” (mtDNA Eve), 200,000 years ago (see chapter 11). The pioneering work of Noam Chomsky has shown that new-born babies genetically inherit an innate and highly advanced language structure.

 

According to Chomsky’s recently-developed and widely-acclaimed theory of universal grammar, the child is able to subconsciously flick a few simple switches in order to comprehend and speak the language of its parents, wherever in the world it happens to be born. It is highly significant that Chomsky, the leading world expert in the science of linguistics, cannot see how the human language acquisition system could have possibly evolved by natural selection.

 

One of the foremost evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges the difficulties with the evolution of language by effectively admitting that it was a freak or chance development:

“The universals of language are so different from anything else in nature, and so quirky in their structure. that origin as a side consequence of the brain’s enhanced capacity, rather than as a simple advance in continuity from ancestral grunts and gestures, seems indicated."

Why did man acquire such a sophisticated language capability?

 

According to Darwinian theory, a few simple grunts would have sufficed for everyday existence, and yet here we are with more than 26 alphabet sounds and an average vocabulary of 25,000 words. Moreover, speech capability was not such an easy or obvious target for natural selection. The human ability to talk resides in both the shape and structure of the mouth and throat, as well as in the brain.

 

In adult humans the larynx (voicebox) is situated much lower than in other mammals, and the epiglottis (the flap of cartilage at the root of the tongue) is incapable of reaching the top of the roof of the mouth. Thus we cannot breathe and swallow at the same time, and are uniquely at risk from choking! This unique combination of features can have only one purpose -to make human speech possible. In all other respects it is an evolutionary disadvantage.

 

Apart from the risk of choking, it causes our teeth to become crowded, so that, prior to the advent of antibiotics. septic impacted molars would often have proved fatal. Just as it is difficult to reverse-engineer the development of the brain and its language acquisition capability, so it is also difficult to reverse engineer the development of speech capability.

Once again, we come back to the mystery of the human brain. We are expected to believe that, within a mere 6 million years, natural selection has caused our brains to expand to the physical limits of the birth canal. That is quite an evolutionary pace! And, at the same time, the brain has acquired an incredibly efficient design with capabilities that are light years away from our needs for everyday existence.

 

In the words of Arthur Koestler:

“The neocortex of the hominids evolved in the last half a million years.., at an explosive speed, which so far as we know is unprecedented.’”

And here is the biggest mystery of all. We are not supposed to have become intelligent overnight, and evolution is supposed to be very slow.

 

Therefore, if we go back one or two million years we should find a semi-intelligent being, using his newly-found abilities to experiment with primitive writing, basic art, and simple multiplication. But there is nothing. Without exception, all of the evidence shows that man continued to use the most basic stone tools for 6 million years, despite his increasing cranial capacity.

 

This is very strange and highly contradictory. We deserve a better explanation.
 

 


A Sexual Revolution
I would like to round up my review of man, the evolutionary misfit, by focusing on some more mysteries and impossible time scales. First of all, there is the mystery of the missing hair. Some anthropologists claim that we remain covered in tiny hairs, but such claims miss the point entirely.

 

In his detailed study, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris highlighted this strange anomaly:

“Functionally, we are stark naked and our skin is fully exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still has to be explained, regardless of how many tiny hairs we can count under a magnifying lens.”

Desmond Morris contrasted Homo sapiens with 4,237 species of mammals, the vast majority of which were hairy or partly haired.

 

The only non-hairy species were those which lived underground (and thus kept warm without hair), species which were aquatic (and benefited from streamlining), and armoured species such as the armadillo (where hair would clearly be superfluous).

 

Morris commented:

“The naked ape [man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy or funny land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.”

Darwinism has yet to produce a satisfactory answer as to how and why man lost his hair.

 

Many imaginative theories have been suggested, but so far no-one has come up with a really acceptable explanation. The one conclusion that can perhaps be drawn, based on the principle of gradiented change, is that man spent a long time evolving, either in water or in a very hot environment.

 

Another unique feature of mankind may provide us with a clue to the loss of body hair. That feature is sexuality. The subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris, who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay, extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that the human female is always “in heat”, yet she can only conceive for a few days each month.

 

As Jared Diamond has pointed out, this is an evolutionary enigma that cannot be explained by natural selection:

“The most hotly debated problem in the evolution of human reproduction is to explain why we nevertheless ended up with concealed ovulation, and what good all our mistimed copulation’s do us.”

Many scientists have also commented on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any living primate. The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery which is “unanswered" by science, a point which is echoed by Jared Diamond:

“... we descend to a glaring failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate Theory of Penis Length... astonishing as it seems, important functions of the human penis remain obscure.”

Desmond Morris described man as “the sexiest primate alive”, but why did evolution grant us such a bountiful gift? The whole human body seems to be perfectly designed for sexual excitement and pair bonding. Morris saw elements of this plan in the enlarged breasts of the female, the sensitive ear lobes and lips, and a vaginal angle that encouraged intimate face to face copulation.

 

He also highlighted our abundance of scent-producing glands, our unique facial mobility and our unique ability to produce copious tears - all features which strengthen the exclusive emotional pair-bonding between male and female. This grand design could not be imagined unless humans also lost their shaggy coat of hair, and so it might seem that the mystery of the missing hair is solved. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, for evolution does not set about achieving grand designs!

 

The Darwinists are strangely silent on what incremental steps were involved, but however it happened, it should have taken a long, long time.

Nobody has adequately explained the steps by which all of these major changes were achieved in a short time frame of only 6 million years. Instead of a long sexual evolution, we appear to have undergone an overnight sexual revolution, in total defiance of the laws of Darwinism.

 

There are three other interesting anomalies which are also worthy of note.

  • The first is the appalling ineptitude of the human skin to repair itself. In the context of a move to the open Savanna where bipedal man became a vulnerable target, and in the context of a gradual loss of protective hair, it seems inconceivable that the human skin should have become so fragile relative to our primate cousins.

     

  • The second anomaly is the unique lack of penis bone in the male. This is in complete contrast to other mammals, which use the penis bone to copulate at short notice. The de-selection of this vital bone would have jeopardized the existence of the human species unless it took place against the background of a long and peaceful environment.

     

  • The third anomaly is our eating habits. Whereas most animals will swallow their food instantaneously, we take the luxury of six whole seconds to transport our food from mouth to stomach. This again suggests a long period of peaceful evolution. The question which arises is where this long and peaceful evolution is supposed to have taken place, because it certainly does not fit the scenario currently being presented for Homo sapiens.


 

Genetic Engineering
Let us now examine the alternative to mankind’s impossible evolution.

 

Could we have been genetically created by the Gods “in their own image”? The texts cited in chapter 1 do indeed suggest that a physical operation was carried out, as a result of which Adam’s DNA was used to create Eve. Furthermore, the texts suggest that humans were then mass-produced by a process which we would today recognize as cloning.

 

As for the first “Adam”, the evidence suggests that he was a hybrid mixture of God and Homo erectus. If this seems too unbelievable, let us stop for a moment, and reflect upon the science of genetics. It is an area which will crop up again and again in later chapters. The gene is essentially a packet of chemical information consisting of DNA. It is now understood that the characteristics of a species are determined by the 4 letter DNA alphabet or “bases” of A, G, C and T, arranged in words of 3 letters, giving 64 possible words.

 

These words mostly encode amino acids, which join together to form proteins, the building blocks of the body. In recent years, scientists have begun to “read” these “letters” and “words” of the genetic code thus isolating many genes and identifying their specific instructions.

The human genome comprises all of the genes on our 23 pairs of chromosomes. It is estimated that there are 3 billion chemical “letters” in the entire human genome, representing data equivalent to a billion-page telephone directory. Scientists have referred to it as “our inherited genetic message” or “the biological recipe for man”. A commonly quoted statistic is that the DNA in each cell unravelled, would stretch 6 feet, and that the DNA in the entire human body would stretch to the Moon and back 8,000 times.

 

Since Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA in 1953, discoveries in the field of genetics have flown thick and fast. Two major breakthroughs occurred in 1980, and were rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Waiter Gilbert of Harvard and Frederick Sanger of Cambridge University jointly developed rapid methods for reading large segments of DNA, whilst Paul Berg of Stanford University pioneered the process of gene splicing.

How might flesh-and-blood Gods have used genetics to physically intervene in mankind’s creation? Let us briefly review the three main lines of applied genetic science. which have been discovered in the last twenty years: cloning, gene splicing and cell fusion. Cloning of human beings has been a scientific possibility for many years, although for ethical reasons the practice has been confined to animals

 

The process would work by first removing the single set of 23 chromosomes from the female ovum. The ovum could then be implanted with the complete set of 46 chromosomes from any human cell. This would lead to the conception and birth of a predetermined individual, an exact replica of the source of the unsplit set of chromosomes. An alternative to the removal of the female chromosomes is to deactivate the nucleus of the ovum either chemically or by radiation.

 

Gene splicing, also known as recombinant DNA technology, can take the form of inserting a new gene in, or removing an undesirable gene from, a DNA strand. The process involves the use of enzymes to allow DNA strands to be cut in the desired places, and then to either remove a “sentence” that makes up a gene, or to insert a “foreign” gene; afterwards the DNA is recombined.

 

An example of gene splicing is the ‘Mighty Mouse’ created by researchers at the universities of Washington and Pennsylvania in 1982 by inserting the growth gene from a rat into a mouse: the mouse then grew to twice its normal size.

 

Many improved” plant species have been designed in this way to resist disease, including the infamous example of the uncontrollable tomato. More recently we have seen the “Super Salmon” from Swedish scientists, whilst future developments may even include the self-shearing sheep!

Whilst gene splicing attempts to enhance a selected aspect without changing the species, cell fusion even more controversially involves the creation of a new hybrid species! The process works by fusing cells from two different sources into a ‘super cell”, comprising two nuclei and a double set of the paired chromosomes. When this cell splits a garbled mixture results.

 

For example, in 1983 scientists combined a sheep and a goat (which cannot naturally mate), creating a geep with a woolly coat and goat’s horns. So far, it has not proved possible to predetermine the result of fusion. so the outcome of these experiments is an unpredictable chimera. In 1989, the Human Genome Project was officially launched in the USA to co-ordinate international research at a cost of $3 billion.

 

The aim of this international project is to track down, analyze and record the 3 billion chemical letters” of the human genome. and to map our 100,000 genes to specific regions on our chromosomes. In December 1993. a “physical map of the human genome” was published by the Centre d’Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (Ceph) in Paris, representing a major landmark in this research.

 

By making its map available internationally on the Internet, Ceph believe that it will enable gene hunters to move ten times faster in future, with a real prospect of deciphering all 3 billion chemical letters of the human genetic code early in the 21st century.

 

Dr Daniel Cohen, director of Ceph, stated:

“Before today, a physical map existed for only 2 per cent of the human genome; our map covers about 90 per cent.”

When this research has been completed, mankind may have the power to create in his own image, in his Own likeness.

 

At that time, if we were to find a species on another planet which happened to have a similar DNA to ourselves, we could cross-breed with them, and select whatever traits we wanted to include, or indeed exclude. That species might well call us "Gods”.

 

One hundred years ago, it would have been science fiction to suggest that mankind could have been genetically engineered as a hybrid being and then cloned. It would also have been scandalous to suggest that the Biblical Elohim had actually resorted to such physical means. Today, such suggestions are scientifically valid and perfectly plausible.

 

The question is, are we simply rediscovering a technology that was used 200.000 years ago?
 

 


Chapter Two Conclusions

  • Homo sapiens suddenly appeared around 200.000 years ago, with a 50 per cent increase in brain size, together with language capability and a modern anatomy. According to the theory of natural selection, this is statistically near-impossible.

  • Human DNA shows signs of having passed through an extremely long and relatively peaceful evolution. This is inconsistent with an evolutionary split from the apes a mere 6 million years ago.

  • The evolutionary anomalies within man are entirely consistent with the idea of a focussed genetic intervention by flesh-and-blood Gods.

  • According to the ancient texts, the first Adam was a test-tube baby, created by the Gods from already living matter. Adam’s DNA (not his rib) was used to create the first woman. Humans were then cloned to ease the “toil” of the Gods.

Back to Contents