originofman

8/7/2019 OriginofMan

1/110


2/110

TopicsTopics

A history of apemen the track record Two case studies

1. Neandertals

2. Australopithecines and LucyHow evolution hinders critical thinkingMechanism for change


3/110

Looking for EvidenceLooking for Evidence

1. The fossil record

2. A mechanism for change

If the evolution of humans from an ape-like

ancestor is true there should be two proof

evidences:

If these evidences are absent, then the

only alternative is special creation by God


4/110

History of ManHistory of ManEvolution begins with

the assumption thatman has evolved from

ape-like creatures

Pick your relativePick your relative

The Bible teaches that

God created man

So God created man inhis own image, in theimage of God he createdhim; male and female

Genesis 1:27


5/110

School TextbooksSchool Textbooks

Look closely at your hand. You have fiveflexible fingers. Animals with five flexible

fingers are called primates. Monkeys, apes,

and humans are examples of

primates.Primates most likely evolved fromsmall, insect-eating rodentlike mammals that

lived about 60 million years ago.

Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Biology Visualizing

Life, 1998, p. 213.


6/110

School TextbooksSchool Textbooks

But all researchers agree on certain basic

facts. We know, for example, that humansevolved from ancestors we share with other

living primates such as chimpanzees and

apes.

Miller and Levine, Biology, 2000, p. 757.
http://nwcreation.net/evolution.html


7/110

Java ManJava Man Pithecanthropus erectusPithecanthropus erectus

1891: An apelike skullcap and ahumanlike thighbone were

found 45 feet apart claim:

500,000

In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant

gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest

connection with the skull.

Rudolph Virchow (regarded as

the father of modern pathology)

stated at the time of discovery:


8/110

Java ManJava Man

Leading authorities of the time rejected

Duboiss findingsHackel, a prime promoter of evolution and

Java Man, already had a reputation for

fraud in promoting his views on evolution

Since 1950, anthropologists and textbooks

have been calling Java man Homo erectus

Human fossils (Wadjak) were also found inJava dating about the same age as Java Man


9/110

Piltdown ManPiltdown Man

Segment of human skullSegment of lower

ape-like jaw


10/110


Parts found between 1908 and 1912 inPiltdown, EnglandPortion of human skull

Portion of lower ape-like jaw The claim: 500,000 year old

intermediate link


11/110

New York Times ran an article:New York Times ran an article:

Darwin Theory Proved True.

Featured in textbooks and encyclopedias In 1953 scientists studied the bones

A fraud (600 year old bones)A fraud (600 year old bones)The Truth



12/110

Nebraska ManNebraska Man

1922 fossil evidence was discoveredUsed to support evolution in the 1925

Scopes trial

The claim: 1 million year old

intermediate link

An extinct pigs toothAn extinct pigs tooth

The TruthThe Truth


13/110

RamapithecusRamapithecus

What they drew

What they found

1930s


14/110


Ramapithicus is ideally structured to

be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't,

we don't have anything else that is.

Time Magazine (Nov. 7, 1977)Time Magazine (Nov. 7, 1977)


15/110

RamapithecusRamapithecusPithecos = Greek for ape

Discovered in 1930s: jaw fragments and teeth

Ramapithicus is ideally

structured to be an ancestor

of hominids. If he isn't, we

don't have anything else

that is.

Time magazine (Nov. 7, 1977)Time magazine (Nov. 7, 1977)


16/110


In 1970 a baboon living in Ethiopia was

discovered. Same dental structure

Similar morphological features found on

Ramapithecus

Ramapithecus dropped from human line

The claim: 14 million year old intermediatebetween ape-like creatures and humans

The truthThe truth


17/110

Summary of FactsSummary of Facts

Java Man Two different creatures

Piltdown Man . Hoax

Nebraska Man .. Pig

Ramapithecus .. Ape

In each case the date (age)

was completely WRONG!

What about the dates?


18/110


An extinct group of primates that lived fromabout 12 to 14 million years ago, .

Although it was generally an apelike creature,Ramapithecus was considered a possiblehuman ancestor on the basis of thereconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of

fragmentary fossils. A complete jawdiscovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid,however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded to be an ancestor of the orangutan.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.


19/110

NeandertalsNeandertals

Lucy and the AustralopithicinesLucy and the Australopithicines


20/110

Case Study 1


21/110


Original Drawing of Neandertal


22/110


Constructed to look ape-like

Brain capacity about 200 cc larger

First found near Dusseldorf, Germany in 1856

Initial construction discovered to be wrongInitial construction discovered to be wrong

Used jewelry Used musical instruments Did cave paintings Capable of speech Buried their dead


23/110

Neandertal Burial CitesNeandertal Burial Cites

Most anthropologists recognize burial as a

very human, and a very religious, act. But

the strongest evidence that Neandertals

were fully human and of our species is thatat four sites Neandertals and modern

humans were buried together.

Marvin Lubenow, Recovery of Neanderthal mtDNA:An Evaluation, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal,

1998 p.89.


24/110

Rearranging the DataRearranging the Data

Lower jaw 30 mm (over

an inch) out of the socket

Drawing of a

Neandertal fossil

purchased at the

souvenir counter at

the museum in Berlin

giving an ape-like

appearance

FromFrom Buried AliveBuried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzoby Dr. Jack Cuozzo


25/110

Rearranging the DataRearranging the Data

Flat, human

appearance

FromFrom Buried AliveBuried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzoby Dr. Jack Cuozzo

Lower jaw 30 mm (over

an inch) out of the socket


26/110

Neandertal AnatomyNeandertal Anatomy

Thick brow

Stocky body build

Short extremities


27/110

Neandertal AnatomyNeandertal Anatomy

Biochemical models have

demonstrated that chewing muscles

working through the teeth generates

intensive concentration ofcompression in the nasal and

forehead regioni.e. a bigger brow

ridge.

B. Endo, Experimental Studies on the MechanicalSignificance of the Form of the Human Facial

Skeleton,J. Fac. Univ. Tokyo, 1966.


28/110

Neandertal DNANeandertal DNA

Analysis of Neanderthal DNA failed to

demonstrate any significance from DNAof modern humans.

Nicholas Comninellis, M.D., Creative Defense:Evidence Against Evolution, 2001, p. 195. (citing

Marvin Lubenow, Recovery of Neanderthal mtDNA:

An Evaluation, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal,

1998.)


29/110

Neandertals Were HumanNeandertals Were Human

Neanderthals were human. They buried their

dead, used tools, had a complex socialstructure, employed language, and playedmusical instruments.

Neanderthal anatomy differences areextremely minor and can be for the most partexplained as a result of a genetically isolatedpeople that lived a rigorous life in a harsh,

cold climate.

Dave Phillips (Physical Anthropologist),

Neanderthals Are Still Human, Impact Article #223,May, 2000


30/110

Neandertals Were HumanNeandertals Were Human

If early human populations were very small and

isolated from one another, gradually each would

accumulate different losses [in mitochondrial DNA]until they all came to look really different from each

other because of the drift.

Nothing in the new data rules out the possibility thatNeandertals interbred with ordinary Homo sapiens,

which would make them part of the same species.

R. Ward and C. Stringer, A molecular handle on

the Neanderthals, Nature, pp. 225226.


31/110

Neandertal PopulationNeandertal Population

Common dates for Neandertals are130,000 to 30,000 years ago

Neandertals existed for about100,000 years (2,500 generations: 40

years per generation)


32/110

Neandertal PopulationNeandertal Population

There should have been over 50 billion

Neandertals that lived during this time!

From year 1 to 2,000 the population has grownfrom about 300 million to 6 billion (100

generations)

The Problem

Where are the fossils?Where are the fossils?


33/110

NeanderthalsNeanderthals

Despite the overwhelming evidence that

Neanderthals were simply a race of stocky

humans, imaginative artists (with the

encouragement of some evolutionists) haveconsistently rendered them as stooped

ape-men.

David Menton, (Ph.D. Cell Biology and 30 years

Professor of Human Anatomy), Making Monkeys

Out of Man, www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp


34/110

Conclusion About NeandertalsConclusion About Neandertals

Protruding brow ridgeStocky body build and short extremitiesIsolated population of people

Lived in a cold, harsh climate100% human

Neandertal man,reconstructed from a

skull found in La

Chapelle-aux-Saints,

France


35/110

Case Study 2


36/110

LucyLucy

What was found?

How old is Lucy?

Did Lucy walk upright and how do weknow?


37/110

Lucy and the AustralopithecinesLucy and the Australopithecines

Lucy discovered in 1974About 40% of the fossil was found

Claimed to be 3.5 million years old

Claimed bipedal (walked upright)


38/110



39/110


Long arms are identical to chimpanzees

Jaws are similar to chimpanzees

Upper leg bone is similar to chimpanzees

Lucys legs were very ape-likeBrain size (400-500 cc) overlaps chimpanzees

Large back muscles for tree dwelling

Hands similar to pygmy chimpanzeeFeet were long and curved

No similarity in appearance to humans


40/110

The Dating GameThe Dating Game

1470 claimed to be 2.9 myo

In 1972 KNM-ER 1470 fossil found Volcanic rock above 1470 dated at 2.6 myo

Large brain capacity 800cc Modern in appearance

KBS Tuff


41/110

Lucy and the Dating GameLucy and the Dating Game

Lucy

A BIG ProblemA BIG Problem


42/110

The Problem and the SolutionThe Problem and the Solution

1470 skull: modern appearance 2.9 myo1470 skull: modern appearance 2.9 myo

How Do Evolutionists Solve This?How Do Evolutionists Solve This?

Ape-like appearanceApe-like appearance Modern lookingModern looking

Lucy: ape-like 2.9 myo

S


43/110

SolutionSolution

Throw out the potassium/argon

dates and use fossil pig

sequences to re-date Lucy(3.5 myo)

Throw out the potassium/argondates and use fossil pig

sequences to re-date Lucy(3.5 myo)


44/110

Dating Method AccuracyDating Method Accuracy

If the evolutionists do not trustpotassium argon dates, then why

should the public be led to trust them?

Potassium/argon

dates

Fossil pig

sequences


45/110

Did Lucy Walk Upright?Did Lucy Walk Upright?

1987 Charles Oxnard (Professor of Anatomy andHuman Biology) Computer analysis

1992 American Journal of Physical Anthropology,

Walked like chimpanzees 1993 Christine Tardieu, (Anthropologist)

reported, Its locking mechanism was notdeveloped.

1994 Journal of Human Evolution, A BiochemicalStudy of the Hip and Thigh

?


46/110


I walked over to the cabinet, pulledout Lucy, and shazam! she hadthe morphology that was classic forknuckle walkers.

Regardless of the status of Lucys knee joint,new evidence has come forth that Lucy has

the morphology of a knuckle-walker.

Richmand and Strait, Evidence that Humans Evolved from

Knuckle-Walking Ancestor, Nature, 2000.

E. Stokstad, Hominid Ancestors May HaveKnuckle Walked, Science, 2000.

C f i b L


47/110

Confusion about LucyConfusion about Lucy

Anatomical evidence indicates that A.

afarensis was bipedalsome anthropologists are convinced by

the anatomical evidence that A. afarensis

was not a modern biped.

Robert Boyd and Joan Silk, (both professors of

anthropology), How Humans Evolved, 2000, pp. 331-334.

Why the confusion?Why the confusion?

Why arent students told about this?Why arent students told about this?

Why the confusion?Why the confusion?

Why arent students told about this?Why arent students told about this?

Did L W lk U i ht?


48/110


There are so many unique features

required for bipedal motion that it is

impossible for a quadruped to gradually

evolve into a biped.

Stuart Burgess (Ph.D. CEng), Hallmarks of Design,2002, p. 166.

C10 U i Ch t i ti


49/110

10 Unique Characteristics10 Unique Characteristics

1. Fine balance

2. Flat face

3. Upright skull

4. Straight back

5. Fully extendable hip joints

6. Angled femur bones

7. Fully extendable knee joints

8. Long legs9. Arched feet

10. Strong big toes

Did L W lk U i h ?Did L W lk U i ht?


50/110


Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner

ear region of some of these skulls. These showthat the semi-circular canals, which determine

balance and ability to walk upright, resemble

those of the extant great apes.

F. Spoor, Implications of early hominid labyrinthine

morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion,

Nature, June 1994 (reported in Creation, 2003, p. 17.)

Dr Spoor, Anatomist and editor of the Journal ofHuman Evolution

Did L W lk U i ht?Did L W lk U i ht?


51/110


The australopithecines known over the lastseveral decades are now irrevocablyremoved from a place in the evolution ofhuman bipedalism,

All this should make us wonder about theusual presentation of human evolution inintroductory textbooks

Charles Oxnard (professor of anatomy and leading expert

on australopithecine fossils), The Order of Man: A

Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, 1984, p. 332.

L d ChiL d Chi


52/110

Lucy and ChimpanzeesLucy and Chimpanzees

The first impression given by all the skulls for the

different populations ofAustralopithecines is of a

distinctly ape-like creature

The ape-like profile ofAustralopithecus is so

pronounced that its outline can be superimposed

on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkablecloseness of fit.

Joseph Weiner, The Natural History of Man, 1971,pp. 45-46.

C l i LC l i L


53/110

Conclusion on LucyConclusion on Lucy

Lucy seemed to be more of a promotion to

convince the public that Johansons fossilswere more important than Richard Leakeys

rather than an attempt to present an

evenhanded assessment of currentpaleoanthropology.

William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, 1984, p. xxii.


54/110

How Evolution HindersHow Evolution Hinders

Critical ThinkingCritical Thinking

A t l ith i A tA t l ith i A t


55/110

Australopithecine AnatomyAustralopithecine Anatomy

anatomists Jack Stern and Randall

Susman, described Lucyshandsand feet as being long and curved,

typical of a tree-dwelling ape.

Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths ofDarwinism, 1997, p. 207.

A t l ith i A tA t l ith i A t


56/110

Australopithecine AnatomyAustralopithecine Anatomy

Menton cites evolutionary sources whichshow that creatures in this species had

hands and feet which were 'not at all like

human hands and feet; rather, they have long

curved fingers and toes'even more so thanapes today that live mostly in the trees.

David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology, Biomedical

research technician at Mayo, and 34 years Professor

of Human Anatomy

Creation ex nihilo, Dec 1996, p. 52.

L Wh t Ni F t Y HL Wh t Ni F t Y H


57/110

Drawing from Life:The Science ofBiology, Purves,Orians, and Heller,

1992, p. 604.

Lucy: What Nice Feet You HaveLucy: What Nice Feet You Have

St Louis zoo replica of Lucy

A d H T tA d H T t


58/110

Apes and Humans a TestApes and Humans a Test

Which footprint is human?

HumanHuman

L t li F t i tL t li F t i t


59/110

Laetoli FootprintsLaetoli Footprints

Footprints discovered in 1978 in Laetoli,

Tanzania. The footprints were dated at 3.5

million years old.

Who made these

footprints?

A d H F t i tApe and H man Footprints


60/110

Ape and Human FootprintsApe and Human Footprints

Ape(Lucy)

Human Laetoli footprint

F t i t d R l E idFootprints and Real Evidence


61/110

Footprints and Real EvidenceFootprints and Real Evidence

The uneroded footprints show a total

morphological pattern like seen in modern

humans.

Tim White, Evolutionary Implications of Pliocene Hominid

Footprints, Science, April 1989, p. 175.

F t i t d R l E idFootprints and Real Evidence


62/110

Footprints and Real EvidenceFootprints and Real Evidence

Indistinguishable from those of

habitually barefoot Homo sapiens.

Russell Tuttle, The Pattern of Little Feet, AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology, Feb 1989, p. 316.



63/110


There is a well-shaped modern heel with a

strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front

of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesntstick out to the side like an ape toe,

Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The

Beginnings of Humankind, 1981, p. 250.

Straight big toeStraight big toe

Strong archStrong arch Heel toeHeel toe

movementmovement

Time: The Holy GrailTime: The Holy Grail


64/110

Time: The Holy GrailTime: The Holy Grail

Who made these footprints? A. afarensis isthe likely suspect because this is the only

hominid whose remains have been found at

Laetoli, and A. afarensis is the only knownhominid to have lived in East Africa at the

time the tracks were made.

Robert Boyd (professor of anthropology) and

Joan Silk (professor of anthropology),

How Humans Evolved, 2000, p. 334.

Ignoring the EvidenceIgnoring the Evidence

The Evolution SolutionThe Evolution Solution


65/110

The Evolution SolutionThe Evolution Solution

In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint

trails at Laetoli site G resemble those ofhabitually unshod modern humans.

None of their features suggest that the

Laetoli hominids were less capable bipedsthan we are.

Russell Tuttle, The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,Natural History, Mar 1990, p. 64.

What about the education system?What about the education system?


66/110

Textbooks Promoting Bad ScienceTextbooks Promoting Bad Science


67/110


Lucys leg bones indicate that shemust have walked upright. She stood

about 1 m (3 ft) tall.

Biology: Principles andExplorations, Holt,Rinehart, and Winston, 2001, p. 307.



68/110


Some 3.7 million years ago, several bipedal

(upright-walking) human animals of the

species Australopithecusafarensis left

footprints in damp volcanic ash in what is

now Tanzania in East Africa.

Biology: Concepts and Connections, 2000, p. 404.

Anatomy of AustralopithecinesAnatomy of Australopithecines


69/110

Anatomy of AustralopithecinesAnatomy of Australopithecines

A serious reconstruction error is to wrongly

align Lucys big toe alongside the smallertoes, like a human foot.

anatomist Dr Charles Oxnard has shown

that the big toe actually sticks out as inchimpanzees.

David Catchpoole, Ph.D., New evidence: Lucy was

a knuckle-walker,www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4256news5-5-2000.asp

Evolution Rejects the EvidenceEvolution Rejects the Evidence


70/110

Evolution Rejects the EvidenceEvolution Rejects the Evidence

Professor Betsy Schumann, evolutionistexpert, admits that the statue's feet

probably are not accurate, but when asked

whether the statue should be changed, shesays,

Creation ex nihilo, Dec 1996, p.52.

In other words, it doesn't matter if people getIn other words, it doesn't matter if people get

indoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidenceindoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidence

In other words, it doesn't matter if people getIn other words, it doesn't matter if people get

indoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidenceindoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidence

Absolutely not.Absolutely not.

Conclusion on BipedalismConclusion on Bipedalism


71/110

Conclusion on BipedalismConclusion on Bipedalism

Cat Scans of the inner ear canals (reflecting

posture and balance) of 53 humans, over 20apes, fossil humans (early Homo), andAustralopithecines by anatomist Dr FredSpoor and his colleagues at University

College, London, showed they did not walkhabitually upright.

F. Spoor, B. Wood and F. Zonneveld, Implications of

early hominid morphology for evolution of humanbipedal locomotion, Nature369(6482):645648, 1994.

Why is this information not in textbooks?Why is this information not in textbooks?Why is this information not in textbooks?Why is this information not in textbooks?

Knee Joint of AKnee Joint of A afarensisafarensis


72/110

Knee Joint of A.Knee Joint of A. afarensisafarensis

15 carryingangle (valgus)

Human = 9

Gorilla = 0Chimp = 0

Orangutan

Spider monkey = 9

Chimp vs Human PelvisChimp vs Human Pelvis


73/110

Chimp vs. Human PelvisChimp vs. Human Pelvis

Chimp

Human

Lucys PelvisLucys Pelvis


74/110

Lucy s PelvisLucy s Pelvis

The fact that the anterior portion of the iliac

blade faces laterally in humans but not inchimpanzees is obvious. The marked

resemblance of AL 288-1 (Lucy) to the

chimpanzee is equally obvious

It suggests to us that the mechanism of

lateral pelvic balance during bipedalism was

closer to that in apes than in humans.

J. Stern & R. Sussman, American Journal of

Physical Anthropology, 1983, pp. 291 & 292.

Lucys pelvis is wrong


75/110

Lucy s pelvis is wrongbecause it is very ape-like

PBS Nova Series; In Search of Human Origins

episode one 1994 (Dr. Owen Lovejoy)

A QuestionA Question


76/110

A QuestionA Question

How accurate are the casts and

pictures in the textbooks and

museums?

Textbooks and AccuracyTextbooks and Accuracy


77/110

Textbooks and AccuracyTextbooks and Accuracy

1Teeth

2Eye socket3 Flatter face

Biology: The Web of Life, 1993

Evolution and ObjectivityEvolution and Objectivity


78/110

Evolution and ObjectivityEvolution and Objectivity

The Darwinist approach has consistentlybeen to find some supporting fossil

evidence, claim it as proof for evolution,

and then ignore all the difficulties.

Philip Johnson, Darwinism on Trial, 1991, p. 84.

(Graduate of Harvard U., Law Professor at U. of

Berkeley)

Evolution and CensorshipEvolution and Censorship


79/110

Evolution and CensorshipEvolution and Censorship

It is evident that the evolutionists fear the

increasing spread of creationist information,

despite their best efforts at censorship.

So they are desperate to counteract this

information. But their efforts dont withstand

scientific scrutiny,

Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D. Physical Chemistry),

Refuting Evolution, 2002, p. 198.

Science and EvolutionScience and Evolution


80/110

Science and EvolutionScience and Evolution

In order to be a credible model all theevidence must be examined. This has not

be done. WhyWhy?

Perhaps to promote evolution

rather than real science

Perhaps to promote evolutionrather than real science


81/110


82/110

Natural SelectionNatural Selection


83/110


Ability to adapt to the environment

Survival of the fittest

Can natural selection cause one kind(species) to become a new kind?

Can natural selection cause one kind(species) to become a new kind?

Natural selection ONLY works with

existing information

Genetic Variation



84/110


Natural selection can act only on those

biological properties that already exist; it

cannot create properties in order to meetadaptational needs.

Elmer Noble, Ph.D. Zoology,

Glenn Nobel, Ph.D. Biology,

Gerhard Schad, Ph.D. Biology,

Austin MacInnes, Ph.D. Biology,

Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites, 1989, p. 516.



85/110


Selection is for the here and now; ithas no foresight, and cannot anticipatewhat functions may be useful in the

future.

Franklin M. Harold (Professor of Biochemistryand Molecular Biology, Colorado State

University), The Way of the Cell, 2001, p. 204.



86/110


Mutation introduces new, usuallydeleterious, variants, and natural

selection removes these variants.

Robert Boyd (professor of anthropology) andJoan Silk (professor of anthropology),

How Humans Evolved, 2000, p. 334.

Natural Selection and MutationsNatural Selection and Mutations


87/110


Time

Natural selection

should eliminateharmful disorders

Mutationsanddisorders If evolution is trueIf evolution is true



88/110


12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

01965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

MIMEnt

ries

MendelianInheritance in Manencyclopedia of human

genes and disorders

MendelianInheritance in Manencyclopedia of human

genes and disorders

Observed data



89/110


I would therefore argue that the veryconcept of natural selection as defined

by the neo-Darwinist is fundamentally

flawed.

Neil Broom, How Blind Is the Watchmaker, 2001,

p. 165. (Ph.D. Chemical and Materials

Engineering)

Human VariationHuman Variation


90/110

Human VariationHuman Variation

WatusiPygmy

Dwarfism

Basketball players

Eskimo (Inuit)Billy Barty

3-foot-9Shaquille

Oneal

7-foot -1

This is an example of genetic variation

and natural selection and NOT evolution

This is an example of genetic variation

and natural selection and NOT evolution

Mutation


91/110

Detrimental Neutral Beneficial

No change

No

evolution

Disease

No

evolution

Evolution

possible

yes

Add

information

No

evolution

No

Change

morphologyNo

Yes

Mutations and EvolutionMutations and Evolution


92/110


But there is no evidence that DNA

mutations can provide the sorts of variation

needed for evolution

There is no evidence for beneficial

mutations at the level of macroevolution, but

there is also no evidence at the level of whatis commonly regarded as microevolution.

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Molecular Biology



93/110


Mutations are rare phenomena, and asimultaneous change of even two amino acidresidues in one protein is totally unlikely.

One could think, for instance, that by constantly

changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually

be possible to change the entire sequencesubstantially

Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72.

(Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnologyand Biomedical Engineering)

continued


94/110

These minor changes, however, are bound

to eventually result in a situation in whichthe enzyme has ceased to perform its

previous function but has not yet begun its

new duties. It is at this point it will be

destroyed along with the organism

carrying it.



95/110


But in all the reading Ive done in the

life-sciences literature, Ive never founda mutation that added information

All point mutations that have been

studied on the molecular level turn outto reduce the genetic information andnot increase it.

Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics MIT, taught

information and communications at Johns HopkinsUniversity), Not By Chance, 1997, pp. 131, 138.



96/110


that the development and survival of

the fittest is entirely a consequence ofchance mutations, or even that naturecarries out experiments by trial and

error through mutations in order tocreate living systems better fitted tosurvive, seems to be a hypothesisbased on no evidence.

Ernst Chain (Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner),

Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1970, p.25.



97/110

Mutations and Evolutionutat o s a d o ut o

We see the apparent inability of mutations

truly to contribute to the origin of new

structures. The theory of gene duplication in

its present form is unable to account for the

origin of new genetic information a mustfor any theory of evolutionary mechanism.

Ray Bohlin, (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology),Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science, 2000, p. 41.

MutationsMutations


98/110

Mutations

Of carefully studied mutations, most have beenfound to be harmful to organisms,

Mutations that are actually beneficial areextraordinarily rare and involve insignificantchanges. Mutations seem to be much moredegenerative than constructive,

Additionally, the number of mutations in organismsseems closer to the number that might begenerated in thousands rather than billions ofyears of life history.

Kurt Wise (Ph.D. Paleontology), Faith, Form,

andTime, 2002, p. 163.

Statement of Scientific Dissent fromStatement of Scientific Dissent from


99/110

DarwinismDarwinism

We are skeptical of claims for the

ability of random mutation and natural

selection to account for the complexity

of life. Careful examination of theevidence for Darwinian theory should be

encouraged.

Signed by over 100 scientistswww.ReviewEvolution.com

Information: The Key to ChangeInformation: The Key to Change


100/110

o at o e ey to C a gey g

There is no known law of nature, no knownprocess and no known sequence of events

which can cause information to originate by

itself in matter.

Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, 1997,p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German

Federal Institute of Physics and Technology)

SummarySummary


101/110

yyHistory of mistakesNeandertals were 100% humanLucy and the australopithecines are

extinct chimpanzee-like creatures

Deliberate misinformation in textbooks(Laetoli footprints)

No mechanism for change

A desperate attempt to censor informationto protect evolution

What is evolution?

SummarySummary


102/110

yy

Evolution is filled with these just-sostories, plausible scenarios for whichno evidence can be found, stories welove to tell but on which we shouldplace no intellectual reliance.

Stuart Kauffman (A leading thinker on self-

organization and the science of complexity as

applied to biology), At Home in the Universe,

1995, p. 43.

The Majesty of GodThe Majesty of God


103/110

j yj y

As a scientist with training in both

medicine and physics, it is easily apparentto me that the majesty of God is revealed in

the human body.

Richard Swenson, M.D., More Than Meetsthe Eye, 2000, p. 17.

SummarySummary


104/110

yy

If the evolution of humans from an ape-likeancestor is true there should be two proof

evidences:

2. Mechanism for change ..

1. Fossil record No intermediatesNo intermediates

No mechanismNo mechanism

ConclusionConclusion


105/110

Many schools proclaim as a matter without anydoubt that man has derived from the African apes.

This is a falsehood which any honest scientist shouldprotest against. It is not balanced teaching. Thatwhich science has never demonstrated should beerased from any textbook and from our minds and

remembered only as a joke in bad taste.One should also teach people how many hoaxeshave been plotted to support the theory of the simian(ape) origins of man.

Giuseppe Sermonti, Ph.D. Genetics, Creation ex

nihilo, 1993, p. 13.


106/110

Astronomy: In the beginning God createdBiology: Created after their kind

Anthropology:Made in the image and likeness

ofGod

Geology: And behold, I, even I, do bring a

flood of waters upon the earth

Six New DVDsSix New DVDs


107/110

The Origin of LifeThe Origin of Life


108/110

gg

Equipping CourseEquipping Course

A Training Guide on Understanding theA Training Guide on Understanding theBiblical Doctrine of CreationBiblical Doctrine of Creation


109/110

Biblical Doctrine of CreationBiblical Doctrine of Creation

Is evolution compatiblewith the Bible?

Does the Bible say how

God created? Is Genesis true history

or just a story?

How long were the

days of creation?

Th O i i f H


110/110

The Origin of Humans

Institute for Creation Research

Mike Riddle

www.icr.org

www.Train2Equip.com

www answersingenesis org

Web Sites

originofman

Documents