by Alan F. Alford
we come from?
Are we the
product of a Divine Creation?
evolve through natural selection?
there another possible answer?
In November 1859, Charles Darwin published a most dangerous idea
- that all living things had evolved through 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 - the culmination of evolution by
the impersonal mechanism of natural selection.
But are the scientists right in applying the theory of evolution to
the strange 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
himself was adamant that ‘some intelligent power has guided or
determined the development of man.’
One hundred years of science have failed to prove Alfred Wallace
wrong. Anthropologists have failed miserably to produce fossil
evidence of man’s ‘missing link’ with the apes and there has been a
growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human
Such are the problems with the application of Darwinism to
mankind that Stephen Jay Gould - America’s evolutionist laureate
- has described human evolution as an ‘awesome improbability’.
Search of the Missing Link
Speciation - the separation of one species into two different
species - is defined as the point where two groups within the same
species are no longer able to inter-breed. The British scientist
Richard Dawkins has described the separation quite poetically as
‘the long goodbye’.
The search for the missing link between man and the apes is the
search for the earliest hominid - the upright, bipedal ape who waved
‘a long goodbye’ to his four-legged friends.
I will now attempt to briefly summarize what is known about human
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 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’ might 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. Furthermore, 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 and 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
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
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
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.
In summary, the evidence discovered to
date is so sparse that a few more sensational finds will still leave
the scientists clutching at straws.
evolutionary history is likely to remain shrouded in mystery for the
Miracle of Man
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 scientifically that mankind was nearly three times more
distinctive than any other ape.
Another scientist to take this approach was the British zoologist
Desmond Morris. In his book, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris
highlighted the amazing mystery of mankind’s ‘missing hair’:
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
The naked ape [man] stands alone,
marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy
or furry land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to
go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing
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 a very hot
environment or in water.
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
As another scientist, 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 copulations do us.
Many scientists have commented also 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 strengthened 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
There are three other interesting anomalies of ‘the naked ape’ 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 deselection 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
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 which is presented for Homo sapiens.
Darwinists explained adequately how the major changes in human
anatomy were achieved in a time frame of only 6 million years...
The Mystery of the Human Brain
The greatest mystery of Homo sapiens is its incredible brain.
the last fifteen 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 thus 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
Whilst many of the human brain’s secrets remain shrouded in mystery,
enough has been revealed for National Geographic to have boldly
described 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.
The eminent scientist Roger
Penrose, for example, commented:
I am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do
not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve algorithms
which could have the kind of conscious judgments of the validity of
other algorithms that we seem to have.
What does the fossil record tell us about our evolving brain
capabilities? The data varies considerably and must be treated with
care (since the sample sizes are limited), but the following is a
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
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 macromutation. 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.
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.
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. Hence Stephen Jay Gould’s
comment about the ’awesome improbability of human evolution’.
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
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 neurons
(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 dexterous 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 five 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 favorite food, the
abalone shellfish, and uses another stone as an anvil to smash open
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 we really see them evolving
intelligence at our level?
Why did we acquire a brain which
qualifies as ’the most complex object in the known universe’, whilst
the chimpanzees did not?
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
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
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, an organism’s 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:
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,
As one of today’s great champions of evolution,
Richard Dawkins, has put it:
’nobody thinks that evolution has ever
been jumpy enough to invent a whole new fundamental body plan in one
Indeed, the experts think that a big evolutionary jump, known as a
macromutation, 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. But even these minor
mutations 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
The odds are already stacked against genetic improvement but we must
add one further factor. A favorable 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, favorable 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. Richard 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
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 an 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
Large changes [in species] occur over tens of millions of years,
while really major ones [macro changes] take a hundred 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 organ or 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 change
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.
Teaser for Darwin
The human brain at birth is approximately one quarter of its adult
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, gynecologists 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 have favored 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.
The latter point is particularly crucial for it implies that the
evolving hominid had a pressing need to develop a brain with
advanced capabilities in such things as art, music and complex
Modern evolutionists, however, 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 favored by natural selection only because they
are absolutely critical to the survival of the species.
Richard Dawkins illustrates this 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 re-engineered to a lower standard.
According to Dawkins, the same principle applies to evolution by
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
favor a lessening of quality up to, but not beyond, a point of
balance with the qualities of the other components of the body.
The importance of this principle can be
judged from the fact that the operation of the brain requires no
less than 20 per cent of our body energy. Its complexity thus makes
it an expensive organ to run.
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? Why has
the over-engineered brain not been de-selected?
The evolutionists would no doubt argue that the algorithms of the
brain did not evolve for music and mathematics, but were ’exapted’
from developments for other purposes. No-one, however, can suggest
what these other purposes might have been, that would have led to
such a highly evolved mental capability. 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.
Elsewhere, Wallace aired his suspicion that another factor -
unknown spiritual element’ - was needed to account for man’s unusual
artistic and scientific abilities.
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 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
for our species?
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.
men split into competitive, rival groups?
Could Neandertal have been
a competitive threat to his fellow Homo sapiens?
On the contrary,
the evidence suggests that Neandertal and Cro-Magnon
peacefully. 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
So, in the absence of an intellectual rival that fits the time
frame, the orthodox evolutionary scenario for the human brain seems
to be fundamentally implausible...
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, there came the shocking discovery of the
60,000-year-old Neandertal hyoid bone which proved that Neandertal
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 neuroanatomists 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 its 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), nearly 200,000 years ago.
The pioneering work of Noam Chomsky has shown that newborn babies
inherit genetically an innate and highly advanced language
structure. According to Chomsky’s 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 possibly have 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. (emphasis
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 today 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 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 was to acquire an incredibly efficient design with
capabilities light years away from man’s needs for everyday
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
its 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 hominids continued
to use the most basic stone tools for 6 million years despite an
increasing cranial capacity. This is very strange and highly
We deserve a better explanation.
Back in 1954, it was thought that the hominid leading to mankind
split from the apes 30 million years ago, and that we 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
to around 200,000 years ago.
In summary, the evolutionary graph has changed from a nice straight
line into an overnight explosion (Figure 1
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 35,000 years ago and had
thus descended from Neandertal 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 behavioral differences,
the European Cro-Magnons were no different anatomically from the
Homo sapiens found in the Middle East 100,000 years ago.
be virtually indistinguishable from the population today if dressed
in modern clothes. It is also clear that Homo sapiens did not
descend from Neandertal as was previously thought. Several recent
discoveries in Israel have confirmed beyond any doubt that Homo
sapiens co-existed with Neandertal between 100-90,000 years ago.
What then is our relationship to Neandertal? 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 Neandertal. In particular, a 60,000-year-old
Neandertal’s 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 Neandertal had the
capability to speak. And many scientists regard speech as the key to
mankind’s great leap forward.
Most anthropologists now recognize Neandertal as a fully
fledged Homo sapiens, who for a long time was behaviorally equivalent with
other Homo sapiens. It is quite possible that Neandertal 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 acromegaly.
As a result of the conclusive dating of contemporary Neandertal 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, supposedly of this archaic species, which
combine different aspects of primitive erectus and modern human
anatomy. It is commonly cited in the popular press that these
archaic emerged around 300,000 years ago. But it turns out that
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. 35,000 years BP) and from there back
through most of the Middle Pleistocene.
A further seminar in 1992 also focused
on the question of the transition from archaic to modern. One of the
papers presented included the following comment:
The timescale of this transition
lies beyond the dating range of C14 and therefore has
necessitated the employment of a battery of new dating
The various papers presented at the
seminar were published by Aitken, Stringer and Mellars in 1993 and
focused 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 dating, based on these methods (rather than radiocarbon,
C14) were presented. Significantly, it was reported that all of the
fossils of the archaic were poorly dated and could not be vouched
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 Neandertal dates back to 230,000 years ago. The
fact of the matter is that Homo sapiens fossils appear suddenly
within the last 200,000 years without any clear record of their
The Atlas of Ancient Archaeology sums up the situation as
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,
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 highly improbable, and close to impossible, according to the
fundamental principles of Darwinism. Allow me to highlight the scale
of these improbabilities.
If we use an ape as the starting point, it is widely agreed that a
significant number of big evolutionary jumps are necessary to evolve
into a man. It is also widely agreed that mutation is the mechanism
by which natural selection works.
However, scientists point out that
the vast majority of mutations are bad. They also point out that
macromutations - mutations which produce big changes - are
particularly dangerous to a species and thus unlikely to survive.
Furthermore, they accept that even if a positive mutation does take
hold in a species, it will do so only in the right circumstances
when a small population becomes isolated. In summary, the mutational
mechanism must take a long, long time.
It is the combination of these improbable factors and the relatively
short period of six million years allowed for man’s evolution from
the apes, which has caused such discomfort to leading evolutionary
scientists such as Roger Penrose, Noam Chomsky and Stephen Jay
The great power of Darwinism, according to its proponents such as
Richard Dawkins, is that, given enough time, natural selection can
explain anything and everything. But when it comes to mankind, the
lack of evolutionary time becomes a major problem. What are the odds
against mankind benefiting from not one but several macromutations
in the course of only six million years?
The problem can be looked at another way. One of the central
principles of Darwinism is that ’nature never over-endows a species
beyond the needs of everyday existence’. So, why was it that, in the
complete absence of an intellectual rival, Homo sapiens did acquire
a brain which was light years beyond its requirements for everyday
How did the hominid known as Homo erectus transform itself 200,000
years ago into Homo sapiens, with a 50 per cent increase in brain
size, together with language capability and a modern anatomy?
According to the orthodox scenario, Homo sapiens emerged suddenly c.
200,000 years ago, and yet made little use of his huge brain for
160,000 years. Then, 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens seemingly
underwent what we might call a transition to modern behavior.
Having swept northwards, he expanded through most of the globe by
13,000 years ago. After a further 1,000 years he discovered
agriculture, 6,000 years later he formed great civilizations with
advanced astronomical knowledge, and here we are after another 6,000
years sending space probes into the furthermost depths of the Solar
It is a scenario which seems utterly implausible and flies in the
face of our understanding of evolution 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 such trades
as mathematics, engineering and astronomy. We shouldn’t even be
dreaming of space probes.
Returning to the study of Sir Arthur Keith, mentioned earlier, how
do we reconcile his conclusions with the scientific evidence which
shows a 98 per cent genetic similarity between man and the
chimpanzee? I would now 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, modern anatomy 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 in such a short time scale.
Clearly everything is not ’hunky dory’ with Darwinism. Yes its
general principles are of great value in explaining the evolution of
animals and specific organs such as the eye, but severe doubts
surround its practical application to man.
These doubts have been continually understated for the simple reason
that scientists regard Darwinism as the only alternative to the
anathema of Creationism. And since Darwinism must therefore be the
key to the existence of Homo sapiens, scientists have forced the
theory to fit the facts and vice versa.
But might there be another alternative - a scientific rival to
Might it be possible that millions of years ago, or
perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago, an intelligent
extraterrestrial species migrated to the Earth (perhaps due to the
explosion of its home planet - now the Asteroid Belt) and intervened
in the course of human evolution?
Might such a species have
hybridized itself with an existing hominid on Earth?
After all, the
scientific evidence does seem to suggest that an unknown hand
upgraded Homo erectus with a series of deliberate, focused
Perhaps now is the time to reconsider Darwinism as it applies to
If Darwinism cannot explain the scientific evidence, then
it must, like the species which are its subject matter, adapt or