By Babu G. Ranganathan

The
problem with evolutionary news of fossil finds, like the recent
discovery of Ardi, is that the public is given an impression in the
popular media that all scientists agree with the evolutionary
conclusions of such finds.

The
public is never, or very rarely, exposed to scientific disagreements.
There are many assumptions and personal interpretations of the fossil
evidence which are conveniently passed on by the media as scientific
fact.

What
we know of Ardi is that it is an extinct primate with all the features
of an ape. But, it was a unique ape, not like any of the apes living
today. Ardi had features found in various ape species. Ardi was a
mosaic of various ape features, but it was still compeletely ape. No
part of Ardi was in any transition to becoming human. Some
evolutionists simply assume Ardi to be an ancestor of humans simply
because it was a unique ape.

Institute
for Creation Research science writer, Brian Thomas, makes some very
insightful remarks about Ardi. Here are a few excerpts from his article
"Did Humans Evolve from Ardi?"

"According
to the researchers who found her, Ardi spent time as a human ancestor,
based on their assumption that humans either evolved from her or some
creature quite like her. “The Ar. ramidus fossils therefore
provide novel insights into the anatomical structure of our elusive
common ancestors with the African apes,” stated one of the Science papers, concluding that “Ar. ramidus implies that African apes are adaptive cul-de-sacs rather than stages
in human emergence.”1 Another paper viewed Ardi as the source of a new
model of hominid evolution:

Referential models based on extant African apes have dominated reconstructions of early human evolution since Darwin’s time…. Ardipithecus essentially falsifies such models, because extant apes are highly
derived relative to our last common ancestors.2 Yet none of these
statements carry meaning without the presupposition of evolution in
general, and unless Ardipithecus is presumed to be an ancestor to man.

To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features.

The
authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique
and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique
feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and
crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct “gut structure,”
upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a “precipitous reduction of
olfactory receptors,” mammary glands that retain a stable size,
unadvertised female proceptivity, and an “unusually energy-thirsty
brain.”3
The
scientific fact is that there is no evidence that humans evolved from
ape-like creatures anymore than there is evidence that apes evolved
from four-legged mammals.

A
true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having
part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned
into feet. There's nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits
of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and
fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e.
"missing" links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many
times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different
species as a basis for claiming a transitional ("missing") link. But,
the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite
are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent.
The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both
mammals and birds but even evolutionists won't go so far as to claim
that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and
mammals!

In
many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities
of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or
"missing") link, but these are not true "missing" or transitional links
so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.
At
times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of
each other and classified them as belonging to the same creature (even
when there's no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever
will support their hypotheses. The fossil case "Lucy" is an excellent
example of this.
Scientists
have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found
yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The
knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below
ground from the rest of the bones.
Many
of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same
species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet,
from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an
ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums!
Many
experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they're not
convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the
same species. Many leading authorities have said that "Lucy" is really
an extinct ape, but not an ape-man.
Those
scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that
receive all the attention from the mainstream media. Millions of people
are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil
record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The
fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.

In
fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have
been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be
either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human.

Yet,
many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved
fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once
reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The
Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that
the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was
used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support
of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

The
Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty
years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery
of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the
scientific community that the "missing" link was found.
Even
if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be
able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe
any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us.
Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another
problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive
over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in
the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing,
eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and
reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were
species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune
system hadn't fully evolved yet?

The only evolution that is possible in nature is micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as the varieties of dogs, horses, cows, etc.) but not macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds).

The
genes must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. All
real evolution simply is an expression over time of what already
existed previously in the genetic pool of a population.

Evolution
just doesn't happen. Something has to direct the formation and
transformation of biological matter for evolution to occur. That
something is what we call genes. Genes are located on the DNA molecule
(the genetic code). DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code
and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical
information.

The
genes exist in all species for micro-evolution (variation within
biological kinds) but not for macro-evolution (variation across
biological kinds), and there is no scientific evidence that random
genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or
will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

Another
problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest.
How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially
evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be
a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

Many
people have wrong ideas about evolution. For example, in November of
2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running
may have contributed to the evolution of man.
The
simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined
and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise.
Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment
simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i.e. a woman who loses her
finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger;
changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color
and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape ever did learn to
walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait
to its offspring. Only the changes that occur in the genes (genetic
information) of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed
on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology.

Adaptation
is the result of natural selection. Let's imagine, for example, that
all humans only have black hair, but the environment changed so that
only humans with red hair can survive. Some of the black-haired humans
also are carrying unexpressed genes for red hair. Over time some
children are born with red hair. The red-haired ones survive (are
"selected") while all the black-haired ones die off. The red-haired
children will ensure that the human species will continue to exist
under the new and changed environment. That's biological adaptation!

Natural
selection doesn't create or produce biological traits. Natural
selection can only "select" from what is produced. The term "natural
selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, doesn't do
any conscious selecting. If a biological variation occurs that helps a
species to survive then we say that the species was "selected". Natural
selection is just another name for "survival of the fittest".

Genetic
similarities between species are no proof of common biological
ancestry. What if the similarities between species are due to a common
Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes?

Genetic
information, like any other information, doesn't happen by chance.
Therefore, it's far more logical to believe that the genetic
similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer
or Genetic Engineer (God) who designed similar functions for similar
purposes in all the various forms of life.

Biologically
speaking, only genetic similarities within a biological "kind" can be
used as proof of relationship since only members or varieties within a
"kind" are capable of inter-breeding and reproducing, thus establishing
proof of biological relationship.

Visit icr.org to read excellent articles by scientists who believe science supports faith in God.

For
an in-depth study of the subject, please read the large version of the
author's article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at www.religionscience.com.

The Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D
degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

MIT scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown has an excellent site at www.creationscience.com.

The
author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his B.A with concentrations in
theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on
religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The
East”.



https://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/109836-4/