Book: The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved

W >> William A. Williams >> The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved




1. Evolutionists say that mammals are descended from some reptiles,
unknown, of course, and birds from others, also unknown. Mammals
differ from reptiles in having breasts (Latin, mammae), a four
chambered heart instead of three, a coat of hair or fur or wool, and a
womb for the young. The temperature of the blood of reptiles is as low
as 60 and even 40 degrees, since the temperature of the blood is about
the same as the environment, sometimes approaching the freezing point.
But mammals have a temperature approaching 100°. We are to believe
that one progressive branch of reptiles, which passed through the
sieve of natural selection, during the Permian Ice Age, was capable of
being adapted to the colder climate. But this mighty chasm between
reptiles and mammals was crossed unaided by any external interference,
unaided by God; then the mammals groped their way, without
intelligence or design, up to man! The difficulties are too great to
satisfy the serious student. No satisfactory explanation has been
given. No fossils, part reptile, part mammal, have been found. We
would naturally expect millions of them. Evidently none ever
existed. How could such radical changes be brought about? What caused
the development of hair, fur and wool? The change in the heart, and
the temperature, the formation of the mammae and of the womb? There
is no evidence of such change. But it is necessary to the scheme.

2. Some reptiles became birds, they say; whether a pair for each of
the 12,000 species of birds or one pair for all, we can not learn. For
nobody knows. They would like for us to believe that these
cold-blooded reptiles with a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees became
birds with a temperature as high as 107; that wings and feathers were
developed, which must have been perfectly useless through the long
ages during which they were developing; that the wonderful
contrivances in the wings and feathers were made by senseless reptiles
that did not know what they were doing. Reptiles have a
three-chambered heart, making them cold-blooded. Birds have a
four-chambered heart, and a temperature higher than that of
man. Reptiles left their eggs to hatch in the sun. Birds, by a fine
instinct, built their nests with care. Some reptiles have 4 feet, some
2, some none. All birds have two feet. The bird's structure is so well
suited for flight and shows the marks of design so clearly, that the
clumsy aeroplane is but a poor imitation. Yet to link the 12,000
species of birds to their unknown reptilian ancestors, they show us
two fossils of the archæopteryx, as the sum total of the evidence
showing the transition from reptiles to birds. The fossil varies
slightly but not essentially from other birds. It has a feathered
tail, some teeth and claws. It is probably not a connecting link at
all, and if it were, we would expect a million fossils of connecting
links. All these nine transmutations are devoid of a single sure
connecting link, when we would expect millions in every case. These
facts prove that evolution is a delusion and an absurdity.



18. ANCESTRAL APES AND MONKEYS


Many have taught that man was descended from an ape or
monkey. Evolutionists, ashamed of a doctrine so repugnant to all
reason and so revolting to mankind, vainly imagine they can escape the
odium of such a view, by declaring that man is not descended from an
ape or monkey, but that all the primates including all monkeys, apes,
and man, sprang from a common ancestor. Of this alleged ancestor
_not a single fossil remains_. Dr. Chapin, Social Evolution, page
39, says: "When the doctrine of the descent of man was first advanced,
superficial and popular writers immediately jumped at the conclusion
that naturalists believed that man was descended from the
monkey. This, of course, is quite absurd, as man obviously could not
be descended from a form of life now living. The ape and the monkey
family, together with man are probably (?) descended from some
generalized ape-like form long since perished from the earth." Suppose
this absurd and unsupported guess to be correct. Then the gorillas,
chimpanzees, gibbons, orang-outangs and other apes; the baboons and
other monkeys; and the lemurs and man were brothers and sisters, or
otherwise closely related, and all were descended immediately or
nearly so from a common ancestor _lower than any_. Where is the
comfort or gain? Moreover, all the members of this primate family must
have inter-breeded for ages, until, according to the theory, they
became distinct species. Therefore, the ancestors of man, for ages,
must have been descended from all these members of the primate family,
and are thus the offspring of _all_ these repulsive brutes, and
the blood of them all is in our veins! In attempting to rescue us from
the ape as our ancestor, they have shown that we are descendants of
the whole monkey family and every species of ape and of many of their
more disreputable relatives also. Great is evolution!

It certainly would be impossible for one single pair to have become
the ancestors of the human race, without mixing and interbreeding with
their kindred primates. Where are the descendants of these mongrel
breeds, part monkey and part man? We would expect all gradations of
mixed animals from monkey to man. "Two or three millions of years ago
an enormous family of monkeys spread over Europe, Asia and Africa."
All related, many our ancestors.

Why did not some other species of the primates equal or excel man or
advance part way between man and the brute? Why are they not now
becoming human? It is plain to the sincere student that the evolution
of man from the brute is only the product of the imagination of those
who wish to deny special creation and exclude God from his universe.

The slight external resemblance between man and the ape family is more
than offset by structural differences which deny kinship. Alfred
McCann in his great book "God--or Gorilla" says, p. 24, "Man has 12
pairs of ribs; the gibbon and chimpanzee, 13; man has 12 dorsal
vertebrae; the chimpanzee and gorilla, 13; the gibbon, 14. The gorilla
has massive spines on the cervical vertebrae above the scapula"; and,
like the other quadrumana (4-handed animals) has an opposable thumb on
the hind foot. There are wide differences in the shape of the skull,
thorax, femur, and even the liver. The skeleton of the brutes is much
more massive. On the tips of the fingers and thumbs of the human hand
are lines arranged in whorls, for identification. In monkeys, the
lines are parallel on the finger tips, but whorls on the palm. Is it
possible that man and such brutes came from the same parents?



19. A STAGGERING SPECULATION


The theory that all plants and animals have descended from one
primordial germ, is staggering to the mind. If so, how was it? Did
this original germ split in two, like some disease germs, one of them
the beginning of plant life, and the other the head of all animal
life? Or, did vegetation only, grow from this first germ for ages, and
then some of it turn into species of animals? As if the guess were
worthy of attention, some are ready to assert that early vegetation
Algae turned into animals. Did plants become animals somewhere along
the way? Or did animals, somewhere along the way, turn into plants?
How long did they interbreed before the gap became too wide? Where are
the descendants of the union between plants and animals? If animals
were first developed from this first germ, what did they live on while
there was no vegetation? What folly is like the folly of the
evolutionist who claims that such weird speculation is science?

Great gaps between the principal divisions of the animal world are
fatal to this speculation, which rests upon nothing but the wish that
it were so. Links are lacking between marine and amphibian animals;
reptiles and birds; reptiles and mammals; between apes and man. Of
course, we would find fossils of millions of these links if there were
any. The missing links are necessary to the scheme. Is there one
chance in a million that evolution is a true hypothesis?



20. SEX


Can the evolutionist explain the origin of sex? Starting with one germ
or even a few germs, reproduction must have been by division for a
time. If the germ that became the head of all plant life, reproduced
by division, when did it begin to reproduce by seeds?

It is still more difficult to explain when sex life began in
animals. There could have been no sex life at first, and perhaps for
ages. They can not tell us when the animals, by chance, acquired the
wonderful adaptation of the sexual life. They have no evidence
whatever. Their guess is no better than that of others. It passes
credulity to believe that the sexual life, with all its marvelous
design, was reached by the invention of irrational animals, when man,
with all his powers of reason, invention, and discovery, is helpless
even to understand the great wisdom and power that brought it about.

Can blind chance, or aimless effort by senseless brutes, accomplish
more than the amazing design of an infinitely wise and powerful God?

How was the progeny of mammals kept alive, during the ages required
for the slow development of the mammae?



21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS


How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for
evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account
of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must
explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's
explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned
scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the
least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because,
naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and,
finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do
sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If
we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of
phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of
their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the
males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous
process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head
and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and
children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is
there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute
ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not
believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even
the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from
the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the
monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute
should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species
of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural
selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy
animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute
perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great
abundance.

The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some
reconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a
picture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed
from his "restorations," the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, and
the Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body or
even without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny Charlie
Chaplin mustache. Their hair had not been combed for 1,000,000 years;
yet we could not detect it. A sympathetic artist can make a
"restoration" suit his fancy and support any theory.

If we are descended from simian stock, how did we come to lose our
tails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species to
lose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not to
find a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sport
simian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could natural
selection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all the
monkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, and
developed into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been a
fatal imperfection.



22. HYBRIDS


"Hybrids would seem to be nature's most available means of producing
new species." Yet the sterility of hybrids defeats that possibility,
and rebukes the untruthful claim of the formation of new
species. Nature, with sword in hand, decrees the death of hybrids,
lest they might produce a new species. Moses wrote the rigid
unchanging law of nature, when he said that every living creature
would bring forth "after its kind."

Species are immutable. One does not become another, or unite with
another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to
produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can
scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass
and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The
zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise
sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate
between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an
ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.

If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and
interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are
immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on
every species. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth, after its kind'."-Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great
truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?

Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants
not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their
endurance is only temporary."

Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by
development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes
are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has
been added by development, much less orders, families and
genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to
plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility
of hybrids by saying, "We do not know." "But why," he says, "in the
case of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have
become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we
do not know." But God knows.



23. THE INSTINCT OF ANIMALS


The instinct of animals is not due to their own intelligence. It is
unerring, unchangeable, without improvement or deterioration. It
implies knowledge and wisdom of the highest order. It is beyond the
wisdom of man. It comes direct from God. It is not learned nor gained
by experience. It is found in many species of animals, and even in a
child, until knowledge and reason make it unnecessary.

One of the most familiar illustrations is the instinct of the honey
bee. It builds its cells in exact geometric form and we compute, by
Calculus, that the form it uses produces the greatest capacity in
proportion to the amount of material used. Who taught the bee to build
its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college
graduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), "It can be clearly shown
that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely
those of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by
habit." We quote from Granville's Calculus, p. 119: "We know that the
shape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey
with the greatest possible economy of wax." This is demonstrated by
the solution of a problem in this same Calculus. Darwin again says
(Origin of Species, vol. I, p. 342), "We hear from mathematicians,
that bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made
their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount
of honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their
construction. It has been remarked that a skilful workman, with
fitting tools and measures, would find it very difficult to make cells
of wax of the true form, though this is effected by a crowd of bees,
working in a dark room. Each cell, as is well known, is a hexagonal
prism, with the basal edges of its six sides, beveled so as to join an
inverted pyramid of three rhombs. These rhombs have certain angles,
and the three which form the pyramidal base of a single cell on one
side of the comb, enter into the composition of the bases of the three
adjoining cells on the opposite side."

Can any one suggest an improvement or show an imperfection? If this
intelligence is the bee's own, which is far superior to that of the
ape, why did not the bee develop a human brain?

Yet in spite of Darwin's admission, he labors hard to show that "There
is no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in natural
selection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct
which are in any way useful"! How could the working bee conserve the
gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and
the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither
parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their
knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees
would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from
generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be
accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the
working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees,
from which they might inherit habits or instinct.

Is not the instinct of the bee the intelligence of God, disproving the
heresy of an absentee God? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerring
wisdom of God.

The immoveable oyster, the bee alive with divine intelligence, and the
sterile progeny of the jackass, are enough to upset the whole theory
of evolution.



24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I


Evolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word of
God. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatever
contradicts the revealed word of God can not be true, although such an
attitude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many other
cogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, we
will appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation in
Genesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if God had not
revealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothing
revealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who would
invent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one or
more of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology,
biology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology,
archaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chance
in a million that a writer of a fictitious account would not have run
amuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personal
knowledge of them.

Although the Babylonian account may have had some foundation in fact,
from a tradition of a prior revelation, it plainly bears the marks of
error. "The Babylonian stories of creation are full of grotesque and
polytheistic ideas, while those of the Bible speak only of the one
living and true God." "All things," the Babylonian legend says, "were
produced at the first from Tiamat." "The gods came into being in long
succession, but, at length, enmity arose between them and Tiamat, who
created monsters to oppose them. Merodach, a solar deity, vanquished
Tiamat, cut her body in two, and with one-half of it made a firmament
supporting the upper waters in the sky, etc., etc." The Babylonian
gods, like even those of the classics, were criminals fit only for
prison or death.

Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution
theory, says: "There must have been three interpositions of a Divine
and supernatural power to account for things as they are: _the
agreement of science with Genesis is very striking_: There is a
gulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living;
and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not
bridge them!"

This "striking agreement" between science and Genesis I, is shown by
the fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the same
order as claimed by modern science: 1. The earth was "waste and void";
2. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep"; 3. Light appears; 4. A
clearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and the
formation of the seas; 6. Grass, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. The
sun, moon and stars _appear_; 8. Marine animals were created;
9. "Winged fowls" were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Man
was created.

The chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events is
ascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from
1 to 11, which is 39,916,800. Therefore, Moses had one chance out of
39,916,800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, as
revealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11
letters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneous
order, any one would have but one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess
the order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he never
could have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told the
order.

This mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theory
of evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinely
inspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. The
fact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with all
proven modern scientific theories, and manifestly confirmed by them,
is a proof in favor of the creation story, decisive and final.

This harmony is manifest whether the Heb. _yom_, day, be taken to
mean a long period, as advocated by many biblical scholars, or a
literal day of 24 hours, followed, it may be, by years or ages of
continuance of the work, before the next day's work of 24 hours began.

Believing that this interpretation does no violence to the text, and
that it is especially in harmony with the statements in the fourth
commandment and elsewhere in the Bible, it is here briefly presented
as one interpretation, showing the marvelous harmony between
revelation and the proven, and even the generally accepted, scientific
theories. The stately procession of events is the same, no matter
which interpretation is accepted, and doubtless will remain, even if
both must yield to another and better interpretation. This majestic
divine order, in harmony with both science and revelation, removes all
doubt of special creation.

Another interpretation, advocated by many scholars, is that all
geologic ages may have intervened during the time indicated between
the 1st and 2nd verses of Gen. I.

The following is a possible, and, it would seem, a probable
interpretation of the inspired creation story. The words of Scripture,
whether from the American Revision, or marginal rendering of the
original Hebrew, or other translation, are put in quotation marks:--


THE CREATION--GENERAL STATEMENT

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," including
the sun, moon and stars, and all other matter in any form.


DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE ORDER OF CREATION

"And the earth was waste and void," literally "desolation and
emptiness." And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere,
"darkness was upon the face of the deep," and doubtless had been for
ages.

"And the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters," and
_perhaps_ was calling into being the lowest forms of marine life.


The First Day's Work. Light Appears.

"And God said, 'Let the light appear'," through the thick vapors. And
the light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished from
the night. "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."
This day did not need to be an age or even 24 hours for God's
work. How long did it take light to appear? Many years, and even ages,
may have followed between each day's work as the "days" were not
necessarily consecutive, and it is not so stated.


Second Day's Work. A Clearing Expanse.

"And God said, 'Let there be a clearing expanse (called heaven)
dividing the waters which were on the earth from the waters in the
thick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air'." This may have
continued a long time, though begun in 24 hours.


Third Day's Work. Land, sea and vegetation appear.

"And God said, 'Let the waters under the expanse be gathered together
into one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear'." The
contraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, and
the draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says,
"All land has been under water." Hitchcock says, "The surface of the
globe has been a shoreless ocean." "And the earth brought forth grass,
herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is
the seed thereof, after its kind." Though the sun was not yet visible
on account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere was
suitable for the grass, herbs, and fruit trees,--three great classes
which represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have again
intervened.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.