What About Those “Ape-Men”?
YET, what of the reports over the years that fossil remains of apelike men have been discovered? Are they not proof of transitions between apes and men?
If this were so, then why is the “inferior” ape family still in existence today, but not a single one of the “ape-men” types, who were supposedly superior? Should not at least one of those higher types have survived the lesser apes? But today we see chimpanzees, baboons, orangutans, gorillas and even monkeys in abundance, but no superior “ape-men.”
From the viewpoint of evolution, it is strange that every one of the “links” between the apes and modern man should have been wiped out, but not the lower apes. However, it is not at all strange if we look at the record from the Bible’s viewpoint. The Bible shows the simple reason why no links exist today: they have never existed.
Gigantic Gap
It is undeniable that among living things today we observe a gigantic gap between the human kind and any animal. In Populations, Species and Evolution, Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, an evolutionist, states:
“No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”
Man’s uniqueness cannot be explained by evolution, for that process should certainly have resulted in at least a few other living things having qualities somewhat like humans. But that is not the case. Of all creatures on earth, only humans are capable of abstract reasoning, using complex languages, accumulating and building on knowledge and transmitting the improvement to their children. Only humans invent and improve on tools. Only they appreciate beauty, compose music and paint pictures.
In addition, in contrast with animals, only humans have an inborn moral sense. True, they can distort it or even work against it, but they still have the faculty of conscience. That is why in all human societies, even godless ones, there are laws protecting morals, human life, property and other rights. But nowhere do we see such conscience at work among the animals.
Yes, it is generally admitted that this gigantic gap between mankind and animals does exist today. But was it always that way? What about those “ape-men” who were supposed to have lived in the past?
Fossil “Ape-Men”
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books, and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”
In spite of this scarcity of fossil evidence for evolution, evolutionists in recent years had generally agreed on a line of ascent from ape to man. A vital link in their chain was the creature called Australopithecus, fossils of which were found in Africa. It had a small brain case, heavy jawbone, and was pictured as stooped over and apish looking.
Evolutionist Ruth Moore stated of it: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” She said emphatically: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.” In 1971 the New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”
Evolutionist Stebbins also said: “The immediate ancestors of Homo [man] were the australopithecines.” Most scientists in the field of evolution agreed. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 1972: “Current evolutionary theory holds that Homo sapiens—modern man—evolved within the past million years from Australopithecus, a fossil with physical characteristics of both ape and man.”
But because there may be a similarity in bone structure between an apish creature and modern man, does that mean they are related? It is very much like a person today examining the bones of a chimpanzee and then of a human, both of whom had died recently, and then concluding that one came directly from the other. He could claim that, but it would simply not be true.
A Shaken Theory
But any theory that is based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, or shallow reasoning, sooner or later comes to nothing. This has already often proved to be the case with many past examples of supposed “ape-men.” So, too, it may now be with Australopithecus, only a few years after it has been dogmatically asserted that he was the most vital missing link of all.
Late in 1972, Richard Leakey and his team found in Africa a skull and leg bones of a creature that is said to have lived at the same time as Australopithecus. But it is claimed to have human characteristics!
Regarding the new find, the East African Standard of Nairobi, Kenya, reported:
“Not only the size and shape of the brain of this new find, but also the limb bones found in the archaeological sites now being searched by the experts at East Rudolf are remarkably like those of modern man.
“And it is these discoveries that have thrown new light on the theory of human evolution which will require a complete reappraisal end modification of the interpretation of previously known examples of early man.”
As a result of this find, Leakey told newsmen that Australopithecus “can be excluded from our line of ancestry.” And the New York Daily News reported: “[Leakey] said that the discovery would make it necessary to abandon the theory of man’s evolution that is now commonly accepted.” The conclusion was: “Homo sapiens [man] did not evolve from Australopithecus.”
How Brutish?
However, regardless of what very ancient fossils are placed in man’s ancestry, are they not apish, brutish and stupid looking? Does this not indicate an evolution from an apelike ancestor?
True, that is how they are pictured. But what is the basis for this? In The Biology of Race we are told: “The assumption of the brutishness and low morality of different people has been clearly shown in the attempts made by paleontologists to reconstruct fossil men.” Then it states: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.”
So the brutish appearance given early men is based not on facts, but on the assumption that they must have looked as if they came from the apes. The apish reconstruction admittedly results solely from the imagination, the fantasy of scientists who are determined to uphold the evolution theory even if it means deceiving the general public.
The truth is that it is impossible to determine by the skull or other bones what a person looked like. This is the case if the skeleton of a man is only four years old, or four thousand years old. The eyes, ears, nose, lips, skin, hair—indeed all outward features—are not preserved in old fossils.
That is why the above-quoted publication admits that regarding such outward features “we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” In view of this, how honest would you say such brutish reconstructions are?
However, because of recent evidence showing that many early humans had a relatively high type of culture, some changes in viewpoint are now taking place. As The Biology of Race states: “More recently the restorers have begun to show a tendency to upgrade the earlier forms of man.” And the New York Times reported:
“It now appears that the men who lived in limestone caves scattered across Europe, from 32,000 B.C. until some 10,000 years ago were innately much like ourselves. In fact, some anthropologists argue that they were taller than modern man and possessed larger brains.”
Thus, a truthful look at the record tells us this: the huge chasm between man and beast that is so obvious today has always existed in the past. Any attempt to put apish creatures in man’s line is a myth. As New Scientist said, there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”
The truth is what the facts show, that God created man separate and distinct from the animals, and that man reproduces only after his kind. He does so today, and has always done so in the past. Any apish creature that lived in the past belonged to the ape kind, not human kind. Fossils of true men were simply varieties of the human kind, just as today we have many varieties or races of people living side by side.
From what we have seen, the latest scientific findings definitely do not support the evolution teaching. It has not met the challenge raised by contemporary scientific findings, because it is not true.
But there is more to the challenge that faces evolution. For example, deserving of careful attention is evolution’s effect on the world’s moral climate. Also, what hope does evolution offer for the future?
The answers involve you.